Skip to main content

Full text of "Representative American Speeches 1938-1939"

See other formats


1 29 422 


u published to make available when needed good debates, collections of 
articles, briefs, bibliographies and study outlines on timely subjects for 
public discussion. Each number is devoted to a single subject and, unless 
otherwise noted, contains briefs, references and selected articles. To make 
the material available at the time of greatest need, publication is irregular. 
Each volume contains ten or more separate issues, about 1500 pages in all, 
and now covers a year in time. Single numbers, 90c unless otherwise noted. 

The Reference Shelf is entered in the Readers' Guide to Periodical Lit- 
eratare, Education Index, Industrial Arts Index, Cumulative Book Index, and 
Book Review Digest 

Volume II. $2.40 


4. French Occupation of the Ruhr. 
(Oxford-Bates debate, with 
briefs, references and reprints) 
, 7. Soldiers' Bonus. J. E. Johnsen 

9. Superpower. L. T. Beraan. 


Recognition of Soviet 
J G. Hodgson. 


See also University Debaters' An- 
nual, 1923-24; 1930-31, 1931-32; 
Recognition of Russia. 


Volume HI. $2.40 



2. A Labor Party for the 
States. J. Gt. Hodgson. 
4. Japanese Exclusion. J. E John- 

Set otto University Debaters' An- 
nual, 1924-25. p. 75-119 

8. Metric System 

J E Johnson. 

10. Outlawing the Pistol. L T Be- 


Volume IV. $3.00 


Government Regulation of the 
Coal Industry. J. E Johnsen. 
Sto also University Debaters' An- 
nual, 1925-26 p 51-93 

4. St. Lawrence River Ship Canal. 

J. E. Johnaen. 

5. Federal Department of Education. 

J. E Johnsen 

Set also Handbook, Ser II. Vol. 
2 and University Debaters' An- 
nual, 1925-26. p 95-142 

7. Special Legislation for Women. 
J. E. Johnsen. 

See also University Debaters' An- 
nual, 1926-27. CL VIIL 

10. Questions of the Hour. (Study 
Outline) New edition, J. EL 

THE R B F JB-R- B N-G E S : H E L-F 

Vol. 13 "No. 3 


SPEECHES: 1938-1939 



Department of Speech, University ofloica 



Copynght> 1939 

By The H W. Wilson Company 
All Rights Reserved 

Published October 1939 
Printed in the United States of America 


Prefatory Note 

Representative American Speeches, 1938-39, is Volume II 
of an annual compilation of American speeches. The ad- 
dresses in this case are roughly those delivered from June, 
1938, to June, 1939. 

In the first volume the selections were limited to those 
composed and delivered by speakers of the United States. 
Furthermore this compilation represented a variety of speak- 
ing types, such as (a) forensic, (b) legislative or deliberative, 
(c) pulpit, (d) demonstrative and ceremonial (including 
business, dinner speaking, educational), and (e) radto. More- 
over the speeches were limited to twenty examples. These 
principles of selection have guided the editor in his composi- 
tion of this second volume. 

Although some of the most vigorous speaking of the year 
was done by Hitler, Chamberlain, Anthony Eden, and other 
European speakers, the list again has included only Ameri- 
cans. (Note that Cordell Hull's address on "The Opening of 
the Pan-American Conference" was delivered at Lima, Peru, 
and that President Roosevelt's address "On the Canadian 
Position of the United States" was delivered at Queen's Uni- 
versity, Kingston, Ontario.) Twenty-eight rather than twenty 
speeches make up this selection of 1938-39. (It should be 
noted, however, that two of the speeches are by Senator Josh 
Lee and that three are by President Roosevelt.) 

Furthermore the present volume continues to represent a 
diversity of speaking types or occasions. Forensic addresses 
include the peroration of a courtroom plea by Thomas Dewey, 


and judicial addresses by Charles Evans Hughes and Frank 
Murphy. Legislative or deliberative speeches are represented 
by the addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, William E. Borah, 
Cordell Hull, Alben W. Barkley, Joshua Lee, Gerald P. Nye, 
Jr , Bennett Champ Clark, T. V. Smith, and Henry W. Taf t. 
The pulpit is represented by Harry Emerson Fosdick, Charles 
W. Gilkey, and Fulton J. Sheen. Demonstrative and cere- 
monial addresses, including business, dinner speaking, educa- 
tional and scientific, are exemplified by Nicholas Murray 
Butler, Joseph E. Eastman, Rexford B. Tugwell, Frank 
Murphy, Robert MiUikan, Robert M Hutchins and George 
B. Cutten Hans V. Kaltenborn illustrates radio speaking 
situations, although many of the other addresses here reprinted 
were broadcast. This classification is of course not strictly 
logical. With modifications to encompass the speaking activi- 
ties of the present world, this division of speeches is found in 
Aristotle's Rbetonc. 

The speeches are usually printed complete. Those de- 
livered in the course of Congressional debate may of course 
represent only a portion of the whole Congressional discus- 
sion. In the case of a running Congressional debate it is at 
times difficult to decide just what a ''complete" speech may 
be. Kaltenborn's radio broadcast of the European crisis last 
September represented hours upon hours of commentary with 
brief interruptions. The example here included is necessarily 
only an excerpt from the thousands of words as uttered 
Thomas E. Dewey's speech on the "Hines Policy-Number 
Case" includes only the peroration of a final speech for the 
state, which closing argument occupied an entire day 

The authenticity of a speech text is always open to ques- 
tion. Did the man actually say what the printed page reports 
him as saying? It is to be admitted that even the speeches of 
President Roosevelt, illustrated by his address "The New Deal 
Must Continue," do not coincide always with the official text 
as furnished by the White House. Impromptu interpolations 
here and there are not always registered in the official version 
as furnished by the author. In as far as is possible in the 


case of the present volume the speech text was furnished by 
or approved by the author. 

On what basis are we to decide whether a selection repre- 
sents a good speaker and a good speech? This collection, 
like the preceding one, is based upon the assumption that a 
speech is the product of a (1) speaker (one who has audi- 
ence projection; who through voice and manner controls his 
audience and impresses them through his speaking leader- 
ship; who uses his voice well with clear enunciation, accept- 
able pronunciation, wide pitch range and pleasing pitch level, 
well controlled vocal intensity and rate of utterance, pleasing 
quality of voice with conversational presentation; who has 
adequate control of bodily mechanism with purposeful ges- 
tures and movements; with appealing personality that ex- 
presses self-control, sincerity, tact, humor, idealism, and simi- 
lar traits) ; presenting (2) a given speech (with significant 
ideas, subject fully analyzed, excellent in organization and 
structure, with abundant and persuasive forms of support, 
with evidence, specific instances, statistics, illustrations, au- 
thority, and other details that give logical validity to the 
document; with efficient and persuasive oral language, that 
is unhackneyed, clear, concise, and vivid, and with sen- 
tence structure flexible, varied, and rhythmical) ; before (3) 
an audience (that responds to the speech which is presented 
in terms of audience belief, drives, interests and attitudes; an 
audience which responds to the emotional appeal and incen- 
tives to action, such as love of country, home, duty) , on a 
(4) specific occasion (such as that of President Nicholas 
Murray Butler addressing a gathering at the New York 
World's Fair; Kaltenborn over the radio telling the world 
that Prague must surrender; President Roosevelt dedicating 
the Thousand Islands Bridge between the United States and 
Canada; William E. Borah battling in the United States 
Senate against Senator Barkley, of Kentucky, and other ad- 
ministration exponents of large Congressional subsidies for 
naval rearmament; Charles Evans Hughes addressing the two 
houses of Congress on the occasion of the One Hundred and 


Fiftieth anniversary of the first Congress; Thomas E. Dewey 
before a New York criminal court; Robert M. Hutchins ad- 
dressing professional men and educators ; George Cutten talk- 
ing to an audience of college undergraduates; Fulton J. 
Sheen leading a religious program over a national hook-up on 
a Sunday afternoon) 1 

The good speech, then, is a synthesis of these various ele- 
ments The good speaker is "good" not simply because of 
his vocal superiority, but also because of his ideas expressed 
m appropriate language that impresses and affects the audi- 
ence Herbert Hoover, although not an orator as is William 
E Borah, does deserve serious consideration in any list of 
American speakers. The former President does have his 
flashes of wit and audience insight and in addition has robust 
content whether or not we may agree with his political prin- 
ciples. Thus Gilkey, Fosdick, Millikan, Hughes, Taft, Nye 
and the others in the present compilation find their place 
because circumstances of the hour gave them opportunity on a 
specific occasion to produce oral results that may properly be 
called "representative." 

The present editor disavows as he did in the previous vol- 
ume any claim for these examples as the "best speeches of the 
year." It is hoped that these addresses are representative "of 
the kind and quality of speaking done in this country during 
the period specified." Certainly the opportunities for hearing 
and reading speeches are today much greater than in former 
periods. Through reference to the Congressional Records, to 
the various departments and bureaus at Washington, to scores 
of religious, educational, business and professional periodicals 
and pamphlets, to many a weekly and daily paper, and 
through radio transmission, a student of public speaking may 
have access to hundreds of examples of speech-making of the 
hour in the United States. 

What of the excellence of these talks of 1938-39 as com- 
pared with those of 1937-38? Although the practice of 

* For an amplification of these tests of a speech see Representative American 
Speeches, 1937-38, p 3 and 4. 


speech-making of two years ago yielded significant examples 
of the art, the author is convinced that national and inter- 
national problems and movements of the past year, and the 
currents of popular thought have combined to give the 
speeches of the present hour a distinctly better quality than 
those of the former twelve months President Roosevelt has 
continued to give addresses that have been up to his earlier 
standard. The new crisis in Europe, which persisted through- 
out the period, the activities of the Seventy-Sixth Congress, in 
which were debated important issues of national defense and 
of balancing the national budget these and similar situations 
have borne fruit in orations, debates, and radio talks of a high 

"If at the top of the achievement scale profound oratory 
is missing, it may be due to the fact that despite our latest 
business recession, we Americans have had no international, 
economic, or religious crises cataclysmic enough to give to our 
prophets tongues of eloquence. Furthermore, our American 
civilization since 1900, with its materialistic urge, its mass 
education that has more and more dominated the curriculum 
even of higher learning, its profound shifts between 1914 
and 1929, may explain the vicissitudes and some of the drab- 
ness of our platform artistry. Our American speaking is utili- 
tarian rather than artistic. Public speaking in a democracy, 
like literature and other art forms, mirrors the social move- 
ments and the spiritual mores of the times." 2 

This book is a collection of speeches and in no sense is a 
document aimed to expound a given political or social atti- 
tude. The present compiler disavows sponsorship for the 
views of the speakers herein included If most of these 
speeches seem to be pro-Democratic or pro-Republican, that 
trend is purely accidental. If the ideas on the whole seem 
vigorously to defend democracy and the American capitalistic 
system, that trend in speaking may be due to the fact that 
American speakers and audiences support that capitalistic 

* Op. at. p. 6. 


This book is arranged for students of speech in secondary 
schools and colleges, especially debaters, extempore speakers, 
orators, and interpretative readers; for students of history and 
contemporary American civilization, and for members of 
courses in oral and written composition. To facilitate the use 
of this book for classroom reading, selections are arranged 
under such representative topics as Peace and War, Foreign 
Policy, Democracy and Propaganda, Economic and Social 
Policy, Administration of Justice, Science, Education, and Re- 
ligion A speech under one category, it is to be admitted, 
may also be classed under another. The approach to educa- 
tion through the study of thought-stimulating speeches is 
amply justified. The present collection has been made partly 
in the belief that this confused world can be more readily 
interpreted by those who familiarize themselves with the rep- 
resentative speeches of the hour. 

To the authors of the addresses who so generously per- 
mitted the reprinting and in a number of cases provided the 
texts, the author expresses his deep appreciation The editor 
is also grateful to his colleagues in speech and to the graduate 
students in his courses and seminar in the History and Criti- 
cism of American Public Speaking, who contributed their 
critical judgment in the preparation of this book. 

July 25, 1939 


Prefatory Note 3 


Why War? Nicholas Murray Butler 13 

Czechoslovakia Capitulates. Hans V. Kaltenborn 18 


The Canadian Position of the United States Franklin 

Delano Roosevelt 25 

Possible Results of a European War. William E. Borah 29 
The United States' Policy Toward War. Franklin Delano 

Roosevelt 36 

Opening of Pan American Conference. Cordell Hull . 40 

The Foreign Policies of Roosevelt Alben W. Barkley 53 

Drafting of Wealth in Time of War. Joshua Bryan Lee 60 

For an Adequate Defense. Gerald P. Nye, Jr 65 

Rearmament. Bennett Champ Clark 71 


What Really Threatens American Democracy "> Edmund 

E. Day 79 

Stopping Propaganda. Dorothy Thompson 87 


The New Deal Must Continue. Franklin Delano Roose- 
velt 97 

Technological Unemployment and Relief. Joshua Bryan 
Lee 108 

Forward America: A Debate. T. V. Smith and Robert 

A. Taft 119 


The Railroad Problem. Joseph B. Eastman 138 

Agriculture, Industry and Labor. Sidney Hillman . . . 142 


The 150th Anniversary of the First Congress Charles 

E. Hughes 161 

For a Third Term. Rexford Guy Tugwell 166 

Civil Liberties. Frank Murphy 173 

The Hines Policy-Numbers Case. Thomas E Dewey . . 181 


Science and the World Tomorrow. Robert A. Millikan 187 


Organization and Subject Matter of General Education. 

Robert M. Hutchins 199 

Arise, Let Us Go Hence. George B. Cutten 210 


Jesus' Ethical Message Confronts the World. Harry 

Emerson Fosdick 223 

Bridges into a Better World. Charles W. Gilkey . . . . 234 

Liberty and the Republic. Fulton J. Sheen 24$ 


INDEX 261 




address was delivered at special exercises in the interest 

of world peace, as part of the International Business Machines Day, 
at the New York World's Fair, on May 4th, 1939. The speech 
was the climax of the ceremonies held in the "World's Fair Music 
Hall, to honor T. J. Watson, President of the International Business 
Machine Corporation. Mayor LaGuardia, Secretary of State Cordell 
Hull, and others sent congratulations to Mr. Watson. President 
W. N. Lewis, of Lafayette College and Commissioner of Educa- 
tion John W. Studebaker, also spoke. The 2500 guests repeatedly 
applauded President Butler's remarks, and arose to their feet in 
sustained applause when he asked "Why should we not go back to 
the famous Joint Resolution passed by the Congress of the United 
States on June 24, 1910, by unanimous vote in each House, calling 
upon the President of the United States to lead in the organization 
or the world for peace with international security protected by the 
combined navies of the world v> 

During the year reviewed in this collection, President Butler 
continued to give highly impressive addresses on educational and 
international themes and through the spoken word to exert his 
leadership as President of the Carnegie Endowment for International 

Why war? In this year of grace, 1939 of the Christian 
Era, why is the whole world at war, economic war, emotional 
war, intellectual war, and shivering under the threat of mili- 
tary war? 

How can such a condition be possible? After all that has 
been said and done through centuries of growing and ripen- 
ing civilization to raise mankind, wherever he may be, to a 
higher level of satisfaction and accomplishment and to bring 
him into relations with his fellow men that will supply new 
sources of comfort and satisfaction as his years of life pass on, 
how is this present outlook possible? What has happened? 

1 International Conciliation Pamphlet, No. 351, June, 1939, p 366-9. 
Reprinted through the courtesy of President Butler. 


Bluntly, there has been, and there is, a complete break- 
down of moral conviction and moral principles in respect to 
national and international policies and relations, and an ap- 
palling incapacity on the part of the citizens of the world's 
few free governments that are left to rise to the heights of 
their responsibility and opportunity. 

If you will take the written public record, war is impos- 
sible. Every civilized nation has formally and openly re- 
nounced it as an instrument of national policy. Why, then, 
has it not been renounced? Bluntly, again, because govern- 
ments have not kept their word and have demonstrated that 
they can no longer be trusted to keep their word. 

In consequence, every nation, east and west, north and 
south, is pouring all its resources, and far more than its avail- 
able resources, into expenditure for what it calls defense. No 
government under any circumstance is preparing for offense. 
Every government is preparing for defense If that be true, 
why is preparation for defense necessary? Because no one 
believes the protestations of governments, 

We are living in an age where the ordinary relationships 
of nations no longer exist The forms and rules and laws 
which have been developing for two hundred or three hun- 
dred years and which we thought had established themselves 
in an elaborate and highly useful code of international law 
and conduct, have all been thrown to the winds, and we are 
now confronted by pressure politics in the international field 
of a sort with which we are quite familiar on a much smaller 
scale in the national field. 

This plan of pressure politics aims to achieve revolution- 
ary results without war by threatening war, and the practical 
question is where will the line be found when that threat of 
war will find itself tempted to cause and to undertake actual 
military operations? 

One of the outstanding statesmen of Europe said to me 
in private conversation a few months ago that the appalling 
thing was that all this trouble in the world is being caused 
by not to exceed twelve hundred or fifteen hundred men. He 


insisted that the peoples everywhere in these democracies, in 
these totalitarian States, in Asia and South America, wanted 
peace and prosperity, but that some twelve or fifteen hundred 
human beings in positions of great responsibility and author- 
ity, that authority being largely based on emotional grounds, 
held the policies of the world today in their hands 

What can be done about it? There is only one answer, 
and that is that these peoples themselves must either compel 
their existing governments to do as they wish or they must 
find new instruments of government that will respond to their 
peaceful ideals and cease these policies of pressure and force 
and threat which are not only terrifying the whole world, but 
making impossible any return to prosperity and happiness 
until these heavy clouds are removed. 

Think what must be the feeling of the mothers of the 
world as they look out on this scene. Many of them remem- 
ber only too well what happened to their husbands and their 
sons twenty-five years ago. How many of them can face with 
equanimity what might, within twenty-four hours, begin to 
happen to the husbands and sons of today? What is the use 
of trade, what is the use of industry, what is the use of com- 
merce, what is the use of effort, what is the use of trying to 
gain some return from all these in order to make mankind 
more comfortable, more fortunate and better protected in old 
age and adversity ? What is the use of it all? We are pour- 
ing out not only the world's earnings, but the world's savings, 
savings for a thousand years, and those savings are not illimi- 
table. There comes a time when they will have gone, and 
what will the world do then unless it desists from this policy 
of threats and this rule of force and terror? What will 

In the last war, there was destroyed a value equal to five 
countries like France, plus five countries like Belgium. Should 
there be another war tomorrow, that destruction might be five 
countries like Great Britain, or five countries like the United 
States of America. And what would history have to say of 
that one hundred or two hundred years from today, as a com- 


ment upon our intelligence, our courage, and our capacity to 
maintain civilization on the high plane what? 

Believe me, there is need for leadership, a new kind of 
leadership; not the leadership which meets force with force, 
not the leadership which regards war as inevitable and spends 
time and countless monies in preparing for it, but leadership 
that understands that there is only one way to get rid of war, 
and that is to remove the causes of war, and that to remove 
the causes of war means international cooperation and inter- 
national effort on an economic, a monetary, a social, and a 
political scale. 

Why should not the Government of the United States go 
back to its traditional leadership in this field which it had in 
its hand from 1899 until 1919 and which it has let pass out? 
Why should we not go back with our vast population, our 
high ideals, our wide political experience, our economic 
power, our convinced belief in peace and its possibility? Why 
should we not go back and make the reply on the behalf of 
the government which President McKinley made to the great 
rescript of the Czar of all the Russias, one of the greatest 
documents in human history, when in 1898, he asked the 
nations of the world to do just what I am proposing they 
return to do now? Why should we not go back to President 
McKinley's great statement made with superb eloquence on 
the day before the assassin took his life? "The period of 
exclusiveness is past." Why should we not go back to Secre- 
tary Elihu Root's instructions to the American delegation to 
the second Hague Conference in 1908 which resulted in ar- 
ranging for a Permanent Court of International Justice? Why 
should we not go back to the famous Joint Resolution passed 
by the Congress of the United States on June 24, 1910, by 
unanimous vote in each House, calling upon the President of 
the United States to lead in the organization of the nations 
of the world for peace with international security protected by 
the combined navies of the world? 

Twenty-nine years ago the Congress of the United States 
passed that resolution without a dissenting vote in either 


House. Then came the Great War, the sad results of which 
I need not repeat. But here we are today faced with this 
perfectly appalling calamity, and voices saying that it is no 
concern of ours, that we need not care if one neighbor mur- 
ders his neighbor, or if one human being assaults another 
human being, so long as they do not live in our house or 
belong to our family. That sort of neutrality is gross im- 

The sooner and the more completely that it is pronounced 
as such and denounced as such, the farther shall we be along 
on the road to peace. That sort of conduct leads inevitably 
to war, no matter what professions may accompany it. If the 
United States Government, from its present commanding 
position, can, for the moment, keep itself outside of and 
above the particular causes of conflict except economic, in 
which we are involved already that are likely to lead to 
military war, why should not that Government today say to 
the whole world, "We remember what we said in 1898 to the 
Czar of all the Russias. We remember what we said in 1908 
which led to the Permanent Court of International Justice. 
We remember what our Congress voted in 1910 to promote 
the peace of the world, and today we say to you, there is 
where we stand and that is what we propose to do." 



This talk was broadcast at 10 00 and at 11.00 PM EST on 
Thursday, September 29, 1938, over the Columbia Broadcasting 

When the September crisis of Europe developed, the American 
broadcasting systems mobilized their facilities to give to the people 
complete information of the events leading to the settlement of 
Munich. In "studio nine" of the Columbia System's New York 
station, Kaltenborn and his colleagues "kept right by the microphone 
night and day from Hitler's Nuremberg speech on September 12th 
until the day after the signing of the Four Power agreement in 
Munich on the 29th" During the period of eighteen days, Kalten- 
born made eighty-five broadcasts "easily a record for continuous 
broadcasting by an individual Each talk was entirely unprepared, 
being an analysis of the news as it was occurring " With an army 
cot beside Mm for such rest as might be snatched, Kaltenborn 
digested the cable dispatches that came through the ticker, and with 
earphones clamped on, he followed the radio comments from Prague, 
London, Berlin, Paris, with his own commentaries. 

The small unit of broadcasting printed below reflects this com- 
mentator's interpretation of the Four Power agreement. 

Early on Friday morning, September 30, the statesmen of Great 
Britain, France, Germany and Italy, at Munich, agreed to allow the 
Reich troops to occupy German portions of Czechoslovakia's Sudeten- 
land. Public opinion in the allied countries, although rejoicing at 
the continuation of peace, regarded the agreement as marking the 
practical dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and a recognition of the 
ascendancy of Germany in Central Europe Kaltenborn's prophecy, 
uttered a few minutes after the news of the agreement came to him, 
was significantly correct "Yes, Prague will accept because it must " 
Kaltenborn was unquestionably the American radio commentator of the 

The terms which you have just heard represent a complete 
victory for Adolf Hitler 

One of the points that are important to note, first, is the 
complete exclusion of Russia, which marks the beginning of 
Russia's exclusion from the councils of Europe, because if this 

*/ Broadcast the Crisis Random House, New York, 1938. p, 244-6 
By permission of the author. Reprinted by courtesy of Random House, 
York, and of Mr. Kalfttiborn. * 


Four-Power Conference precedes others to be carried on along 
the same lines, it definitely means that there is now a coopera- 
tion of Fascists and Democratic Powers of France and Eng- 
land, for the exclusion of Russia from the councils of Europe. 

Hungary and Poland will also receive concessions of terri- 
tory. That is inherent in the implications of the agreement. 
The Czechoslovak Government will undoubtedly negotiate 
such cessions with Poland and with Hungary within the brief 
period of time that is allowed in the official agreement Then 
Germany and Italy may join in the agreement to respect 
Czechoslovakia's remaining frontiers. It is to be noted that 
for the moment only France and England join in that 

The French delegation was completely broken as it left 
the council room and prepared to return to France. The 
reason is obvious When this proposal is presented to the 
French Chamber of Deputies many voices will be raised to 
oppose it and criticize it. That same thing will be true in 
lesser measure in the British Parliament. But Prime Minister 
Chamberlain has a tremendous majority in the House of Com- 
mons and the relief at not being obliged to fight a war will 
offset the humiliation which the British will feel in this 
surrender to Hitler's demands. 

Many questions of details are still to arise. The Inter- 
national Commission will presumably look after those. The 
Commission has a good deal of authority, and it is possible 
that when it makes those ethnological adjustments which were 
referred to in the text, it will perhaps give Czechoslovakia 
certain concessions which do not appear on the surface of the 

Fundamentally, however, this does represent an almost 
complete victory for Hitler Like most negotiators, he asked 
for much more than he expected to get, and I venture to say 
that he got much more than he really expected 

Military leaders, not the civilian leaders, have won. It is, 
of course, a victory for the dictators. 


They're right in Italy and Germany to rejoice. General 
Goenng gave a party in celebration. 

Fascists have taken it as a big victory for Premier Mus- 
solini. And why not? Great leaders, great Powers came to 
Bemto Mussolini and said to him, "You are the man; only 
you can have some power of persuasion over Adolf Hitler. 
Won't you please intercede with him and ask him to preserve 
the world's peace?" 

And Benito Mussolini graciously accepted the obligation 
of saying a word to the other end of the Rome-Berlin axis 

Edward Murrow tells us that m London there is rejoicing 
over peace; there is for the moment relief, but as he suggests, 
criticism may come later. I remember one phrase of com- 
ment he used in his earlier talk this evening "Must conces- 
sions be made each time a nation threatens violence ? " for 
that is a question that is being asked by many millions the 
world over tonight. 

Naturally there is a wave of gratitude that peace has been 
preserved but one wonders whether it is peace, or whether it 
just may not be the prelude to other demands and other con- 
cessions and then finally to the type of demand which no con- 
cessions can satisfy and which will end in the break that has 
now, happily enough, been avoided. 

There is one great Power in Europe, mighty in its military 
force, mighty because it extends from the Baltic to the Pacific, 
that has been completely excluded from any contact with this 
conference, and yet it is a Power whose might cannot be 
wished out of the world, it is a Power that will become more 
cynical because of what has happened at Munich Soviet 
Russia. Moscow tonight calls the Munich Agreement "A 
routine endeavor to molly-coddle an aggressor " That's typi- 
cal of Soviet sarcasm, but one wonders whether to some extent 
it may not be justified. 

As I studied out on the map the details of some of the 
terms, I saw how clever Hitler was in the way he has ar- 
ranged his military occupation. Where do troops go in first? 
Not from Germany; not into that little finger of Czech terri- 


tory that sticks out into Germany, where the Germans are 
already established over half the distance. Oh no, they'll 
march in on Saturday from Austria to signify that it was 
Austria first and Czechoslovakia second. Who knows what 
may be third? 

And of course you're asking: "But will Prague accept 
this?" Doubt has been expressed on various points tonight. 
I can't share that doubt. I have in mind the Czech memo- 
randum, so sincere, so pleading, so gracious. The Prague 
Government submitted this one in a last, final endeavor to 
secure some concessions for itself. There is one paragraph 
stating that at this critical juncture the Czechoslovak Govern- 
ment is placing the interests of civilization and world peace 
before the distress of its own people and is resolved to make 
sacrifices which never in history were asked from an undefeated 
state with such concentrated effort. 

Yes, Prague will accept because it must. 




This address was delivered at Queen's University, Kingston, 
Ontario, Canada, on August 18, 1938. President Roosevelt had 
gone there to receive the honorary degree of IX D. before dedicating 
a new international bridge across the St. Lawrence River. The 
stadium audience, electrified, so far forgot themselves on this academic 
occasion as to break into wild applause and cheering at the close of 
the address. The statement, "I give you the assurance that the 
people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of 
Canadian soil is threatened by any other empire," was widely hailed 
as a "turning point in United States foreign policy" and as an 
"extension of the Monroe Doctrine." President Roosevelt later 
denied that his speech was so designed. Britain and France loudly 
applauded. The address was interpreted as a direct arraignment 
of Germany, Italy, and Japan. 

President Roosevelt later in the day dedicated the Thousand 
Islands Bridge, the chief purpose of his Canadian visit. The two 
addresses should be examined together 

pleasure of being once more on Canadian soil where I have 
passed so many of the happy hours of my life, there is added 
today a very warm sense of gratitude for being admitted to 
the fellowship of this ancient and famous university I am 
glad to join the brotherhood which Queen's has contributed 
and is contributing not only to the spiritual leadership for 
which the college was established, but also to the social and 
public leadership in the civilized life of Canada. 

An American President is precluded by our Constitution 
from accepting any title from a foreign Prince, potentate, or 
power. Queen's University is not a Prince or a potentate but 
it is a power. Yet I can say, without constitutional reserve, 

1 By permission of President Roosevelt. Text supplied through the courtesy 
of Mr. Stephen Early, Secretary to the President. 


that the acceptance of the title which you confer on me today 
would raise no qualms in the august breast of our own 
Supreme Court. 

Civilization is not national it is international even 
though that observation trite to most of us, is today chal- 
lenged in some parts of the world. Ideas are not limited by 
territorial borders, they are the common inheritance of all 
free people. Thought is not anchored in any land, and the 
profit of education redounds to the equal benefit of the 
whole world. That is one form of free trade to which the 
leaders of every opposing political party can subscribe. 

In a large sense we in the Americas stand charged today 
with the maintaining of that tradition. When, speaking re- 
cently in a similar vein in the Republic of Brazil, I included 
the Dominion of Canada in the fellowship of the Americas, 
our South American neighbors gave hearty acclaim. We in 
the Americas know the sorrow and the wreckage which may 
follow if the ability of men to understand each other is 
rooted out from among the nations. 

Many of us here today know from experience that of all 
the devastations of war none is more tragic than the destruc- 
tion which it brings to the processes of men's minds. Truth 
is denied because emotion pushes it aside. Forebearance is 
succeeded by bitterness. In that atmosphere human thought 
cannot advance. 

It is impossible not to remember that for years when 
Canadians and Americans have met they have light-heartedly 
saluted as North American friends, without thought of dangers 
from overseas. Yet we are awake to the knowledge that the 
casual assumption of our greetings in earlier times today must 
become a matter for serious thought. 

A few days ago a whisper, fortunately untrue, raced round 
the world that armies standing over against each other in 
unhappy array were to be set in motion. In a few short hours 
the effect of that whisper had been registered in Montreal and 
New York, in Ottawa and in Washington, in Toronto and in 
Chicago, in Vancouver and in San Francisco. Your business 


men and ours felt it alike; your farmers and ours heard it 
alike; your young men and ours wondered what effect this 
might have on their lives. 

We in the Americas are no longer a far away continent, 
to which the eddies of controversies beyond the seas could 
bring no interest or no harm. Instead, we in the Americas 
have become a consideration to every propaganda office and 
to every general staff beyond the seas. The vast amount of 
our resources, the vigor of our commerce and the strength of 
our men have made us vital factors in world peace whether 
we choose or not. 

Happily, you and we, in friendship and in entire under- 
standing, can look clear-eyed at these possibilities, resolving 
to leave no pathway unexplored and no technique undeveloped 
which may, if our hopes are realized, contribute to the peace 
of the world. Even if those hopes are disappointed, we can 
assure each other that this hemisphere at least shall remain a 
strong citadel wherein civilization can flourish unimpaired. 

The Dominion of Canada is part of the sisterhood of the 
British Empire. I give to you assurance that the people of 
the United States will not stand idly by if domination of 
Canadian soil is threatened by any other Empire. 

We as good neighbors are true friends because we main- 
tain our own rights with frankness, because we refuse to 
accept the twists of secret diplomacy, because we settle our 
disputes by consultation and because we discuss our common 
problems in the spirit of the common good. We seek to be 
scrupulously fair and helpful not only in our relations with 
each other but each of us at home in our relations with our 
own people. 

But there is one process which we certainly cannot change 
and probably ought not to change This is the feeling which 
ordinary men and women have about events which they can 
understand. We cannot prevent our people from having an 
opinion in regard to wanton brutality, in regard to undemo- 
cratic regimentation, in regard to misery inflicted on helpless 
peoples, or in regard to violations of accepted individual 


rights. All that any government, constituted as is yours and 
mine, can possibly undertake is to help make sure that the 
facts are known and fairly stated. No country where thought 
is free can prevent every fireside and home within its borders 
from considering the evidence for itself and rendering its 
own verdict; and the sum total of these conclusions of edu- 
cated men and women will, in the long run, become the 
national verdict. 

That is what we mean when we say that public opinion 
ultimately governs policy. It is right and just that this should 
be the case. 

Many of our ancestors came to Canada and the United 
States because they wished to break away from systems which 
forbade them to think freely and their descendants have in- 
sisted on the right to know the truth to argue their prob- 
lems to a majority decision, and, if they remained uncon- 
vinced, to disagree in peace. As a tribute to our likeness in 
that respect, I note that the Bill of Rights in your country and 
in mine is substantially the same. 

Mr. Chancellor, you of Canada who respect the educa- 
tional tradition of our democratic continent will ever maintain 
good neighborship in ideas as we in the public service hope 
and propose to maintain it in the field of government and of 
foreign relations. My good friend, the Governor General, in 
receiving an honorary degree in June at that university of 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, to which Mackenzie King and I 
both belong, suggested that we cultivate three qualities to 
keep our foothold in the shifting sands of the present 
humility, humanity and humor. All three of them, imbedded 
in education, build new spans to reestablish free intercourse 
throughout the world and bring forth an order in which free 
nations can live in peace. 

WAR 1 


Senator Borah delivered this speech over the radio on March 
25th, 1939. Senator Burton K. Wheeler said of it, "I wish to say 
that in my judgment it is a great American speech and one which 
should be widely read " It presents in compact form the Borah 
vigorous arguments given during March in the Senate debates on 
the problems of increases for the army and navy and of changes in 
the neutrality legislation. The Senator here summons evidence, 
illuminates his text with flashes of oratory, of humor, and he 
expounds his political philosophy. In his seventy-fourth year he 
continues to rank with the country's ablest political speakers, both 
in the Senate and over the air. In a secret ballot, the officials of 
the Washington broadcasting stations in 1934, picked the five best 
political speakers of the nation. These choices were in order: 
"President Roosevelt, Hugh Johnson, Senator Borah, Secretary 
Wallace, and Secretary Perkins/' (New York Ttmes, August 2, 
1934, p 19.) 

On March 1st Borah in the Senate denied that the United States 
has an isolationist policy, and he opposed the proposed appropriations 
for a submarine base at Guam. He favored a war referendum 
(March 18) ; assaulted the Pittman bill proposing a cash-and-carry- 
policy toward belligerents in a war (March 19). An informal vote 
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a few days later revealed 
that the twenty-three members were divided into several groups in 
their opinions as to what should be done concerning the Neutrality 
Act. There were collectivists, isolationists, supporters of the present 
law, undecided members, and those who refused to commit them- 
selves. On the eve of the Committee hearings, on possible changes 
in the law, these hearings to begin on March 26th, Senator Borah 
appealed to the country over the NBC network. 

In July 1939, the Senate Committee by a vote of twelve to 
eleven voted (contrary to Roosevelt's urgent request) to recommend 
no bill modifying the present neutrality legislation. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: What would happen in this 
country if we should permit ourselves to be drawn into a 
European war? It is a legitimate question to propound and 

1 Congressional record. 84: no 61:4725-7. March 27, 1939. By permis- 
sion and through the courtesy of Senator Borah. 

about which we ought all to be thinking, for powerful in- 
fluences at home and abroad are seeking by all kinds of 
methods to bring us to that end, to involve us in all the 
racial, territorial, and financial problems of Europe, and ulti- 
mately, in war. What will happen to the American people, 
their homes, their children, and their liberty? What will 
happen to this Republic? For war, of all things on earth, is 
freedom's greatest enemy. We are told that we may have to 
go to war. Nevertheless, it is proper to ask* What will 
happen if we do? If we reflect sufficiently upon these mat- 
ters, it will at least help us to weigh carefully and may I 
say, prayerfully the steps by which we may be led into these 
European controversies and into European wars. 

First, what are the conditions in these days of peace, the 
conditions which will confront us, if war comes, for upon 
these conditions we will have to build for war. We now have 
a national debt, including obligations underwritten, of forty- 
five billion dollars, a budget of something over ten billion, a 
deficit somewhere around three and one-half billion. We have 
a tax burden so heavy that it is breaking the spirit and para- 
lyzing the energy of millions of our people. Do these things 
have anything to do with preparedness for war? Do they 
have any bearing upon the stability of perpetuity of this Gov- 
ernment? We also have eleven million unemployed and we 
have the squalor and the misery, the sorrow and the dis- 
couragement which come with such unemployment We have 
one-third of our industrious, law-abiding citizens, it is esti- 
mated, men and women anxious to win back prosperity and a 
decent way of living, to rear in respect and happiness their 
children, living on the bare necessities of life or upon charity 
Do these things have anything to do with the question of 
whether we should enter a war? Do not these conditions 
show we are wholly unprepared for war, regardless of the 
extent of our armaments? Do they not show that we are in- 
deed a sick nation and that in this condition of affairs is to be 
found the real danger to our democracy? Are not these things 
which make for confusion and demoralization, socially and 


politically, the very things which are sapping the foundation 
of this Republic? Do they not create the soil from which 
spring the isms and systems which constitute the real menace 
to democracy? 

But, had I the time and you the patience, I would take 
you to the legislative Isle of Patmos, that is, to the congres- 
sional files where rest the bills introduced and to be con- 
sidered and probably passed in case of war. You will find 
there such revelations, and you need not possess the vision of 
the Apostle of Old, as I venture to say you have never dreamed 
of. You will get an intimation of what will happen when 
war comes to this country. These measures would not leave 
untouched or uncontrolled any duty or any right of the citizen 
except that of paying taxes and going to war These bills are 
offered in good faith by able men, by men who confidently 
believe that in case of war they would be an essential part of 
the war program. They ask for your money, if you have 
any There would be no free speech, no free press, no liberty, 
except such liberty as would be essential to serve the cause of 

It is urged, especially by our friends abroad, that we as a 
nation and as a people have great responsibility. We cer- 
tainly have! Our first and supreme responsibility is to put 
our own house in order, to demonstrate that this free enter- 
prise, this democracy of ours, is a success. At a time when 
doubt and challenge rest like mildew upon the faith of men 
and women in free government and free institutions, our first 
responsibility is to drive want and hunger from our midst, to 
give men and women an opportunity to work. Ours is an 
imperative responsibility to prove to the world that there is 
such a thing as free government with a free people a happy, 
prosperous, contented, and loyal people. This would give 
inspiration to people everywhere who covet freedom, and 
above all, it would be the very best security we could have 
for our own peace and liberty. But, if in addition to our 
own tremendous task, we undertake to place all other peoples 
in their proper places, to designate what kind of a government 


they should have, to guarantee boundary lines, to cleanse and 
purify the inhuman creeds of other lands, I venture to say 
this Republic would break down in the effort and our people 
would be compelled to take up a load they could not possibly 

Twenty-two years ago we laid the conscriptive power of 
this Government upon the youth of our land and took them 
across the sea to fight and die in an effort to adjust other 
peoples' problems. I have no intention of reflecting upon 
either the wisdom or the patriotism of that sublime adventure. 
But has it no lesson to teach? Do we not now realize how 
toughly engrained and how inherently imbedded in the whole 
structure and civilisation of Europe are the ambitions of 
rulers, racial antipathy, intolerance, and, most of all, the 
belief that only by force can such matters be dealt with. We 
entertained the hope then that in the presence of the power 
of this Republic, these things would give way, governments 
would become more liberal, and liberty more secure, and, 
above all, the people would have a happier outlook. We 
returned home, leaving our dead in foreign soil, bringing 
with us the maimed and the insane, leaving behind a Europe 
poisoned and torn with bitterness and hate, the breeding 
ground of many wars, and saturated with more imperialistic 
schemes and personal ambitions than have been known 
since the days of the Caesars. All these things were embodied 
in so-called peace treaties to be preserved, fostered and 
nurtured until the time should ripen them for action. Not 
since the Hundred Years' War was Europe so embittered 
and impoverished as it was the day the Versailles Treaty 
was signed and the great Frenchman, Clemenceau, truly said, 
in substance: "This is a continuation of the war/* 

About the only treasure we brought home was the story 
of endurance and undaunted heroism of the untrained Ameri- 
can boy, taken from the factory or the farm and thrown 
almost overnight into the hell of European battlefields a 
story without precedent in all the annals of war. 


It is important that we discuss among ourselves and fully 
realize what the issue is in Europe. What is it that is threaten- 
ing the world with another war? I must say that, in my 
opinion, it is imperialism that is, territory, colonies, raw 
material, trade. These are things which are dominating the 
movements of the different governments regardless of what 
may be said by individuals of these governments as to the 
issues. Let the imperialistic questions be adjusted satisfactorily 
to democracies and the creed of intolerance, war upon liberty, 
are passed over, condoned In no official coming together 
of the totalitarian states and the democracies, in the dis- 
cussion of differences, has the question of naziism, with all 
its teachings, ever been brought forward, much less made 
an issue. 

No better friend since Hitler became the master of Ger- 
many has Hitler had than the British democracy. Apparently 
regarding arbitrary, centralized government in Europe as the 
best guarantee of stability, it has built up Hitler's strength 
and favored his cause in every crucial situation. There is 
material in Europe for a crusade in behalf of morals and 
liberty with which a Gladstone could fire a continent, but 
democracies with more than half of their subjects denied 
such guarantees and privileges as may be found in our Bill 
of Rights will not make use of this material. I will say in 
fairness they cannot under the circumstances make use of this 
material or make it the issue. I will give some facts in 
support of my contention. 

When Japan seized Manchuria and our government asked 
that Great Britain join in a protest, the British government 
sent one of her ablest men to Geneva and, in the face of two 
treaties, defended the lawless act of Japan. It was argued that 
British interests would be better protected by Japan. This 
seizure of Manchuria and its success laid the foundation for 
the present war against China. 

When Hitler was preparing for the taking over of Austria, 
a representative of the British Government let Berlin know 
that it mieht be well for Europe if Austria massed into stronger 


hands. As the time drew near for the use of the political 
guillotine on this weak nation, Ribbentrop, Hitler's special 
and spent several days with the members of the British Gov- 
f riend and representative, visited London, arriving March 9th, 
eminent He dined with the King, with Mr. Chamberlain, 
Lord Halifax. On March llth, after the preemptory ulti- 
matums of Hitler began to pour in upon Austria, Schuschmgg, 
Austria's Prime Minister, in his desperation, began a hunt 
for friends among the democracies. He used the phone. He 
called up Paris, but no member of the government could be 
found. He tried London, but he could not contact with 
any member of the government. It was at this time, this 
very time, when it was fully known what was transpiring, 
that the representative of Hitler was visiting with the King, 
with Mr. Chamberlain, Lord Halifax, and others. It is 
reported that the Archbishop of Canterbury was among them. 
There was no voice to be found here against the seizure of 
Austria or in behalf of democracy. 

During the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, no mention 
was ever made of the teachings and practices of nazi-ism or 
of the danger of enlarging its influence in Europe. Although 
they were turning over a vast number of people, some of 
whom it was too well known, bore the mortal enmity of their 
new master, no suggestion was ever made in the settlement 
of territorial matters in behalf of or as to proper treatment 
and reasonable protection of these people. Can anyone find 
anything unfriendly in these proceedings, or any antipathy, 
to nazi-ism, as such, during the period in which the only 
real Republic in Europe was on the operating table After 
the deed had been done and the two republics had sent the 
ultimatum of September 19th near midnight, to Czechoslo- 
vakia calling for a decision within a few hours, Mr. Chamber- 
lain made his settlement with Hitler and exhibited it to the 
world saying, in effect, that you can trust this man "I take 
up my place alongside of him.' I ask for no modification of 
his philosophy of government." In doing so, he gave greater 
power and greater prestige to Hitler throughout Europe than 


he perhaps himself ever hoped to enjoy. Nothing was said, 
nothing was suggested that the individual with whom he had 
taken up his position was to change his creed or to modify 
in any respect his views which had startled the world and 
which in the near future was to enact a scene which in its 
cruelty and hideousness beggars description. 

My time is limited, and I shall not follow up the facts 
demonstrating beyond all question that what the democracies 
are contending for is the reali2ation of their imperialistic 
schemes and not the destruction of nazi-ism. I will call the 
roll of the States who can testify to this fact, the roll, as 
given to the world by one of England's distinguished states- 
men: China, Ethiopia, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and the 
Republic of Spain. 

For myself, I would adhere closely to the advice of Wash- 
ington no entangling alliances, express or implied. I would 
regard the Monroe Doctrine as a part of our national defense 
and a cornerstone of our foreign policy. I would send no 
money to European war chests, no munitions to any nation 
engaged in war, and above all, no American boy to be sacrificed 
to the machinations of European imperialism. 



This address was broadcast from the White House as part of 
the opening program of the New York Herald-Tribune Eighth Forum 
on Current Problems, on Wednesday night, October 26, 1938. Before 
the same audience, Herbert Hoover had ably argued that there is 
little likelihood of territorial encroachment on the western hemisphere; 
"that there is no immediate prospect of war in Europe, for" war is 
more remote "since the Munich settlement" Thus the President 
and his Republican opponent in this Forum held a debate, in sub- 
stance, on the issue of the prospects of war. Their points of view 
were directly opposed on foreign policy and national defense. Roose- 
velt's speech was significant as foreshadowing the principles to be 
incorporated in his special messages to the incoming Congress, on 
foreign policy and national defense, and as throwing light on his 
own efforts in October to prevent war in Europe. 

No one who lived through the grave hours of last month 
can doubt the longing of most of the peoples of the world 
for an enduring peace. Our business now is to utilize the 
desire for peace, to build principles which are the only basis 
of permanent peace. 

It is becoming increasingly clear that peace by fear has 
no higher or more enduring quality than peace by the sword. 

There can be no peace if the reign of law is to be replaced 
by a recurrent sanctification of sheer force. 

There can be no peace if national policy adopts as a 
deliberate instrument the threat of war. 

There can be no peace if national policy adopts as a 
deliberate instrument the dispersion all over the world of 
millions of helpless and persecuted wanderers with no place 
to lay their heads. 

1 By permission of President Roosevelt. Reprinted from the text furnished 
through the courtesy of Mr. Stephen Early, Secretary to the President. 


There can be no peace if humble men and women are 
not free to think their own thoughts, to express their own 
feelings, to worship God. 

There can be no peace if economic resources that ought 
to be devoted to social and economic reconstruction are to be 
diverted to an intensified competition in armaments which 
will merely heighten the suspicions and fears and threaten 
the economic prosperity of each and every nation. 

At no time in modern history has the responsibility which 
rests upon governments been more obvious or more profound 

I speak for a United States which has no interest m war 
We covet nothing save good relations with our neighbors; 
and we recognise that the world today has become our 

But in the principle of the good neighbor certain funda- 
mental reciprocal obligations are involved. There must be a 
deliberate and conscious will that such political changes as 
changing needs require shall be made peacefully. 

That means a due regard for the sanctity of treaties It 
means deliberate avoidance of policies which arouse fear 
and distress. It means the self-restraint to refuse strident 
ambitions which are sure to breed insecurity and intolerance 
and thereby weaken the prospect of that economic and moral 
recovery the world so sadly needs. 

You cannot organize civilization around the core of 
militarism and at the same time expect reason to control 
human destinies. 

For more than twelve years, the United States has been 
steadily seeking disarmament. 

Yet we have consistently pointed out that neither we, nor 
any nation, will accept disarmament while neighbor nations 
arm to the teeth. If there is not general disarmament, we 
ourselves must continue to arm. It is a step we do not like 
to take, and do not wish to take. But, until there is general 
abandonment of weapons capable of aggression, ordinary rules 
of national prudence and common sense require that we be 


We still insist that an armament race among nations 
is absurd unless new territories or new controls are coveted. 
We are entitled, I think, to greater reassurance than can be 
given by words: the kind of proof which can be given, for 
example, by actual discussions, leading to actual disarmament. 
Not otherwise can we be relieved of the necessity of increasing 
our own military and naval establishments For while we 
refuse to accept as a permanent necessity the idea of force, 
and reject it as an ideal of life, we must be prepared to meet 
with success any application of force against us. 

We in the United States do not seek to impose on any 
other people either our way of life or our internal form of 
government. But we are determined to maintain and protect 
that way of life and that form of government for ourselves. 
And we are determined to use every endeavor in order that 
the Western Hemisphere may work out its own interrelated 
salvation in the light of its own interrelated experience. 

And we affirm our faith that, whatever choice of way 
of life a people makes, that choice must not threaten the 
world with the disaster of war. The impact of such a disaster 
cannot be confined It releases a flood-tide of evil emotions 
fatal to civilized living. That statement applies not to the 
Western Hemisphere alone but to the whole of Europe and 
Asia and Africa and the islands of the seas. 

In all that I have said to you I have reaffirmed the faith 
of the American people in democracy. The way of democracy 
is free discussion as exemplified by the objectives of the 
Forum to which I am speaking. Free discussion is most 
greatly useful when it is restrained and relates to facts. It is 
not useful to suggest either to the American people or to the 
peoples of other nations that the American Government, its 
policies, its practices and its servants are actuated by motives 
of dishonor or corruption. To do so is, of necessity, an attack 
on the American system of constitutional representative 
government itself. 

Let us work with greater unity for peace among the nations 
of the world, for restraint, for negotiation and for community 


of effort. Let us work for the same ideals within our own 
borders in our relations with each other, so that we may, 
if the test ever comes, have that unit of will with which 
alone a democracy can successfully meet its enemies 



Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, delivered this speech at Lima, 
Peru, on December 10, 1938, at the opening of the Pan American 
Conference Each of the twenty-one nations had sent delegates The 
main issue of the gathering involved the solidarity of the American 
states in defense against the possible encroachments of totalitarianism. 
Secretary Hull's speech was a "personal triumph" Strong applause 
greeted him before he spoke and especially at that point in his 
remarks when he declared that "America would not permit invasion " 
The speech was broadcast and at intervals translated into Spanish. 
In view of the independent positions assumed by Brazil and the 
representatives of one or two other countries, and in view of the 
delicate problems growing out of our commercial competition with 
European nations in South America, and our interest in supporting 
the Monroe Doctrine, the conciliatory tone and diplomatic emphasis 
of the speech were noteworthy. 

The speaker was widely acclaimed in the press of Latin America 
and the United States for his views as here set forth. Secretary Hull 
also gave radio addresses from Lima on December 9th and December 

His own appraisal of the Conference results was highly optimistic. 
The Pan American Conference, he stated at the end of December, 
"made it clear that the American nations are united in their effort 
to secure on this continent and throughout the world a system of 
international relations that will mean peace, economic security, and 
friendly understanding and cooperation among the people of the 
American nations." A Gallup poll, of the American Institute of 
Public Opinion, released on December 6th, indicated that the Ameri- 
can public approved Mr. Hull's Latin American policy and program. 

AND GENTLEMEN: It is a matter of unusual satisfaction to 
me and my associates to meet and greet the members of the 
other American delegations, with many of whom I have had 
the good fortune of being associated at previous inter- 
American conferences. 

1 By the courtesy of the author. Text supplied by the Department of State. 


This being one of our regular inter- American conferences, 
it is well to survey briefly the course of events since we last 
assembled in this capacity. These events are today of profound 
significance to our nations and to the whole world. 

Five years have elapsed since the Seventh International 
Conference of the American States met at Montevideo. That 
conference faced a somber prospect of continuing deterioration 
in the field of international relations in several parts of the 

The years of profound and world-wide economic dis- 
location had taken a heavy toll of material losses and human 
suffering everywhere International commercial, financial, and 
monetary relations were m a state of disorder and confusion. 
Unprecedented trade barriers of every description had arisen 
and continued to rise in all countries. Exchange of goods 
among nations had fallen precipitately, both in value and 
in physical volume. These developments were serving to 
intensify economic depression in all countries, to disrupt and 
reduce prices, especially of primary products, to destroy values, 
to discourage enterprise, to create widespread unemployment 
and general distress, and to undermine the foundations of 
social and political stability. 

Side by side with these mounting difficulties and, in 
large measure, as their result there appeared ominous signs 
of a disastrous lowering of standards in international political 
relations. Respect for the pledged word and willingness to 
fulfill treaty obligations were rapidly weakening. An effort 
to reach agreement on a broad program of limitation and 
progressive reduction of armaments was swiftly moving to 
the point of tragic failure. 

On our continent, too, the relationships among the Ameri- 
can nations were not altogether happy. Misunderstanding, 
prejudice, and aloofness characterized many phases of rela- 
tions between some of the American nations. 


The Seventh International Conference of American States 
performed a task of historic importance. The representatives 
of the sister republics brought to the work of the Conference 
a deep sense of responsibility, a firm determination to find a 
better way of international life than that toward which 
mankind seemed to be drifting. The Conference laid a solid 
foundation for future accomplishments on the broadest scale 
and outlined definite and concrete programs to promote peace, 
progress, and prosperity m the Western Hemisphere 

The 21 American republics represented at Montevideo 
affirmed their devotion to peace and their condemnation of 
resort to armed force as an instrument of accomplishing 
national aims. They proclaimed their belief in fair play, 
fair dealing, and mutual respect for the independence, the 
sovereignty, and the rights of nations as the indispensable 
bases of a civilized world order under law. They took im- 
portant steps toward making effective a concrete machinery 
for the maintenance of peace on the American Continent. 

The Montevideo Conference laid greater emphasis than 
had ever been done before in inter- American relations on the 
imperative need of expanding economic relationships, among 
the American nations and among all nations, upon a sound 
and healthy basis of fair dealing and equal treatment. In 
the discussions and formal pronouncement of the Conference, 
there was fuller recognition than ever before of the indis- 
pensability of such economic relationships for the prosperity 
and social stability within nations, as well as for peaceful 
and orderly relations between nations. In its resolutions, the 
Conference urged vigorously a comprehensive program of 
rehabilitation and improvement of international economic and 
financial relations. 

During the years that followed the Montevideo Confer- 
ence, the influence of the work accomplished there bore fruit 
in the form of steadily and rapidly improving relations among 
the American nations. But, at the same time, elsewhere in 
the world international relationships continued to deteriorate 
Solemn treaty obligations were being increasingly brushed 


aside or breached. A gigantic program of rearmament was 
being rendered inevitable for the entire world by the an- 
nounced determination on the part of a number of large 
countries to use armed force as an instrument of attaining 
their national aims and by their intensive activity in armament 

New world problems, affecting the vital interests of all 
American nations, were arising with startling rapidity. 
Accordingly, the representatives of our 21 republics met, two 
years ago at Buenos Aires, in an Inter- American Conference 
for the Maintenance of Peace. 

Building on the foundations laid down at Montevideo, the 
Buenos Aires Conference carried far forward the work of 
strengthening and perfecting the structure of peace in the 
Western Hemisphere. By the signing at that Conference 
of several far-reaching conventions, treaties, and protocols and 
by the adoption of a Declaration of Principles of Inter- Ameri- 
can Solidarity and Cooperation, powerful instruments of peace 
were forged at Buenos Aires. A system was thus created 
under which the American nations undertook to maintain 
peace among themselves and pledged themselves to consult 
with each other in the event that the peace of any one of 
them might be threatened whether on the American 
Continent or from outside. 

The creation of this American system was the outstanding 
accomplishment of the Buenos Aires Conference. In addition, 
our nations reaffirmed their determination, already clearly and 
vigorously expressed at Montevideo, to work in the direction 
of improved economic relations and of closer cultural relation- 
ships as necessary foundations of order under law. Under 
this system and as a result of this determination, peace and 
friendly cooperation prevail today in the Western Hemisphere. 

The Treaty of Peace between the Republics of Bolivia 
and Paraguay, concluded last July, is one of the most 
significant and encouraging developments in inter-American 
relations during recent years. By this peace the two countries 
gave an undeniable example to the faithless and the reckless 


who think that questions can be settled only by force or 

Finally may I add that it should be a matter of profound 
gratification to all of us that our nations can point to an 
impressive record of accomplishment during the past 5 years. 
To be sure, stock taking alone, even as satisfying as this, is 
not sufficient. We are faced today with world problems and 
world conditions which are even more difficult and fraught 
with more danger for all of us than those with which we 
were confronted at Montevideo and at Buenos Aires. Our 
present Conference has before it tasks of utmost gravity and 
responsibility. But a clear visualization of what we have 
already accomplished and a realization, therefore, of what we 
are capable of accomplishing should aid us enormously in 
applying ourselves to the tasks which are before us. 


There is no mystery about the reasons why developments 
in the Western Hemisphere during recent years have been 
so markedly different from those which have occurred in 
many other parts of the world. In large measure, the explana- 
tion lies in the fact that the American nations have in common 
certain important and fundamental characteristics. 

Each of our nations arose out of a revolution which had 
for its objective national independence and the assertion of 
human rights and of popular government. The men and 
women of the particular generation in each of our countries 
which achieved for its people independent nationhood staked 
their all on a passionate conviction that forms of government 
can be created under which human rights will be secure. 
They gladly fought for the vindication of their conviction. 
They bequeathed to us of today not only the forms pf such 
government but also the spirit on the basis of which alone 
institutions of this character can endure. 

Throughout its national existence, each of our nations 
has sought to perfect within its frontiers a system of repre- 


sentative government and of liberty for the individual. In 
this supreme endeavor, some of us have encountered greater 
internal difficulties than have others. Some of us have 
remained free from interference of outside forces, some have 
had to combat such forces. But in each and every one of our 
nations there has been no flagging in the determination of 
the people to preserve national independence and freedom for 
the individual. 

Our nations have drawn into their populations men of 
many races, creeds, and languages. This fact has not operated 
as an element of weakness The occasion for the adjustment 
of race to race and of creed to creed has been in large measure 
instrumental in teaching us how to develop adjustment of 
individual to individual and of group to group without which 
civilized society and democratic forms of social and political 
organization cannot function satisfactorily. 

A spirit of tolerance, mutual respect, and understanding is 
as important in the relations of our nations with each other 
as in our internal relations Happily this spirit has been 
present, although it has not always developed uninterruptedly 
along an upward trend. Like all things human, it has had 
its fluctuations. Disagreements and controversies have arisen 
among us. But they have remarkably seldom been settled 
by the arbitrament of violent conflict, in the form of either 
military or other types of coercion. 

International relations in the Western Hemisphere have 
not been free from the paralyzing and disruptive forces of 
narrow nationalism. But the operation of these forces has 
been paralleled and, happily, increasingly overcome by the 
growth of solidarity, of common concern for peace and 
progress in our relations with each other, by a strengthening 
of determination to adjust by pacific means alone whatever 
differences may arise among us. 

It is not an accident that American nations have been 
peculiarly interested in the development of international law. 
Relationships such as those which have been steadily growing 
up among us are impossible unless rules of international con- 


duct are carefully defined and unless such rules are fully 
accepted and become governing. That is the essence of 
civilized order in the international life of the world. 

Historically speaking, the developments which I have 
briefly described have not been peculiar to the Western Hemi- 
sphere. For a century and a half, the progress of human 
enlightenment and human freedom continued throughout the 
world, overturning the bulwarks of tyranny and opening the 
way for the establishment of democratic institutions and the 
assertion of human rights. Nor has the earnest search for 
world order under law been confined to any one portion of 
the globe. The developments which have taken place in the 
Western Hemisphere have been a part of a mighty stream of 
new ideas, new concepts, new attitudes of mind and spirit, 
which has coursed and ramified, with differing degrees of 
vigor and success, throughout the world. We have made 
important contributions to that stream, and have, in turn, been 
nourished by it. 


Unfortunately, in recent years, powerful forces in some 
parts of the world have challenged the validity of the primary 
and basic principles upon the foundation of which we and 
the rest of mankind have been building the edifice of our 
social organization and of our international life. Whatever 
outer garments they may wear today, these forces are not new 
in the experience of mankind. Fundamentally, they are the 
same forces that had for centuries held men in bodily slavery 
and spiritual degradation and had impressed upon the rela- 
tions among nations a state of anarchy, of reliance upon 
armed force, of complete absence of any kind of safety and 

Mankind is tragically confronted once more by the alterna- 
tives of freedom or serfdom, of order or anarchy, of progress 
or retrogression, of civilization or barbarism. 

Let there be no illusion. The alternatives are real and 
concrete not only in the portions of the world lying in the 


immediate vicinity of the countries in which these resurgent 
forces find their organized expression; they loom threaten- 
ingly throughout the world. Their ominous shadow falls 
athwart our own hemisphere. 

In the face of this threat, it is our most important duty 
to ourselves and to humanity to maintain and preserve inviolate 
our own institutions and the beliefs on which they rest. 
It is imperative that the 21 republics of the Western Hemi- 
sphere proclaim, unequivocally and unmistakably, their pro- 
found belief that only the type of national organization and 
of international relationship which we and the rest of man- 
kind have been persistently and laboriously building up in 
the course of recent generations can make it possible for 
nations to advance materially and culturally, and for man to 
be free. It is imperative that our peoples rededicate them- 
selves to the ideals which actuated the founders of our 
respective nations. It is imperative that our generation should 
find again that clarity of vision, that tenacity of purpose, and 
that heroic determination which led our forefathers to stake 
their all to make every sacrifice, if need should be for the 
assertion of human rights and creation and maintenance of 
free popular government. 

The characteristics which our nations have in common 
and which have already rendered possible in the Western 
Hemisphere a recent course of developments different from 
those which have occurred in many other parts of the world, 
are powerful factors m enabling us to perform this duty. 
Toward that end we must work unremittingly. 

Each and all of us desire passionately to live at peace with 
every nation of the world. But there must not be a shadow 
of a doubt anywhere as to the determination of the American 
nations not to permit the invasion of this hemisphere by the 
armed forces of any power or any possible combination of 
powers. Each of our nations obviously must decide for itself 
what measures it should take in order to meet its share of 
our common interest and responsibility in this respect. As 
far as my country is concerned, let no one doubt for a moment 


that, so long as the possibility of armed challenge exists, the 
United States will maintain adequate defensive military, naval, 
and air establishments. 

At the same time, we all know that armed force is not 
the only instrumentality by which nations can be conquered. 
Equally, the dissemination by nations of doctrines and the 
carrying on of other types of activity can be utilized for the 
purpose of undermining and destroying in other nations 
established institutions of government and basic social order. 
Such activities are based on the fallacious theories of class 
or racial superiority, or claims to national dominance, which 
are being revived again in some parts of the world. 

There is no place in the Western Hemisphere for a revival 
of such doctrines and theories, which our nations, in common 
with an overwhelming majority of civilized mankind, rejected 
long ago. 

Each and all of us desire to maintain friendly relations 
with every nation of the world resting upon the basis of 
mutual respect for national independence, upon noninter- 
ference in the internal affairs of others, upon fair dealing in 
every phase of international relationships. But there should 
not be a shadow of a doubt anywhere as to the determination 
of the American nations not to permit the invasion of this 
hemisphere from any quarter by activities contrary or inimical 
to this basis of relations among nations. Here again, with a 
full consciousness of our common interest and responsibility, 
each of our nations must decide for itself what measures it 
should take in order to meet these insidious dangers. 

All this is of surpassing importance. And yet, adequate 
defense against actual or potential danger is not enough as 
the objective of responsible statesmanship. There is equal 
or even greater need for unstinted effort in the direction of 
removing the causes of danger and of opening the way for 
the constructive processes of human progress. The conditions 
which confront us require also a vigorous program of positive 


In an important measure, such a program already exists. 
It is the fruitful result of inter- American conferences held in 
the past and of the influence exerted upon the life of our 
hemisphere by these periodic exchanges of views and by the 
agreements which we reach on vital problems. The Confer- 
ence in which we are again assembled now as representatives 
of the American nations offers a timely and precious oppor- 
tunity for advancing and perfecting this indispensable pro- 
gram of assuring the solidarity, security, independence, 
prosperity, and progress of the Americas and of making our 
individual and joint contribution to the peace and well-being 
of the world. 


Our Conference must carry forward the work of building 
an enduring structure of peace. It is within the power of the 
American nations to furnish a conclusive demonstration that 
peace, based on justice, law, and cooperative effort, is un- 
questionably feasible. To that end, we must examine anew 
the existing instruments of peace, by which we are all bound 
to a system of pacific settlement, and give our best thought to 
every possible method of perfecting further the inter- American 
machinery of peace. 

Our Conference must devote sincere effort to discovering 
the means of strengthening the foundations of international 
law. At a time when the structure of world order under 
law is being undermined and impaired in many parts of the 
globe, the very highest responsibility rests upon us to keep 
alive those fundamental principles of relations among nations 
upon which alone such order can be maintained. The right of 
each nation to manage its own affairs free from outside inter- 
ference; recognition of the sovereignty and equality of states 
irrespective of size and strength; respect for the pledged word 
and the sanctity of treaty obligations these and numerous 
other basic priciples must be the governing rules of inter- 
national conduct if peace rather than anarchy is to prevail, 
and civilization is to advance. 


Our Conference must extend and make more secure the 
bases of sound and healthy economic relations among nations. 
Excessive trade barriers and other obstacles to the flow of 
mutually profitable international commerce still weigh heavily 
upon the economic life of the world on our continent, as 
well as elsewhere. Nations cannot prosper and provide for 
their populations a full measure of stable employment and 
a rising standard of living if international trade is destroyed 
by suicidal attempts at autarchy or is impaired by being forced 
into the artificial channels of narrow bilateralism or exclusive 
regionalism. And just as production cannot be expanded 
and improved by a return to hand operation, so trade cannot 
be fostered by a reversion to the primitive forms of physical 
barter. Only through a liberalization of trade relations, 
through a reduction of excessive trade barriers, through a 
firm establishment of equality of commercial treatment, can 
the exchange of goods among nations play its vital and indis- 
pensable role of enhancing the prosperity and stability of 
national economies. 

The removal of excessive trade barriers and the restoration 
of the trade process to a basis of equality of commer- 
cial treatment and commercial opportunity is today a task 
of the utmost importance. Unless the nations of the world 
can achieve this task, the prospect for economic and social 
improvement and stability within nations must remain dark 
indeed. Our Conference should examine every feasible 
method of aiding in the successful performance of this task 
among ourselves, as well as between each of us and the rest 
of the world We seek to restore mutually profitable trade to 
the fullest practical extent both among the American nations 
and among all the nations of the world. 

Our Conference must carry forward the work of providing 
wider and stronger foundations for international cultural 
relations and better understanding among nations again, 
among ourselves, as well as between each of us and the rest 
of the world. This work of moral disarmament, already far 
advanced on the American Continent, is indispensable for 


the creation and maintenance of a civilized world order under 
law It is an important vehicle for strengthening and develop- 
ing those innumerable international relationships in every 
phase of human activity through which the lives of nations 
have already been vastly enriched. 

The American nations, with the cooperation of some of 
the nations of the other hemisphere, are faithfully carrying 
forward the program of principles underlying world order, 
peace, and economic restoration, which I have fully sum- 
marized. The success of this program is indispensable to 
the welfare and progress and civilization of the human race. 
For each and every nation the establishment of these principles 
throughout the world would bring immense benefit, as any 
alternative policy resting on force must bring each and every 
one disaster. 

Each nation has a sincere standing invitation to join in 
approval and support of this program of principles It would 
be an unspeakable calamity if any nation at this crucial and 
critical time in the affairs of men should further pursue the 
opposing course of force and military aggression. Here is 
presented the greatest single issue confronting all peaceful 
nations. We shall not lose sight of it for a moment as we 
grapple with the vital questions peculiar to this hemisphere. 

The world's greatest need today is that there be created 
and maintained conditions which will give to nations and to 
individuals peace of mind and of spirit. Toward producing 
those conditions, we must strive with all our strength in 
every field political, social, economic, and moral. Only as 
favorable conditions develop in all these fields, will the way be 
open for a reversal of the present-day trend in military arma- 
ments, which impose so crushing a burden upon the lives of 
nations and individuals and open before mankind the horrible 
vista of a marvelous civilization crashing into ruin under the 
impact of a period of all-destroying warfare. 

We of the Americas are fortunate beyond words in being 
so situated that we can make our example and our influence 
a potent factor in promotion of conditions in which there 


may be peace with justice and with security. Nor do we stand 
alone. There are in other parts of the world powerful forces, 
actual or latent, working toward the same end. 

We must not bring the labors of this Conference to a 
conclusion without providing a renewed basis of hope and a 
renewed determination not only for our own nations, but for 
all other nations or groups within nations, which, at times 
against great odds and in the face of heart-breaking difficulties, 
are working for a better world. 



This argument by Senator Barkley, Senate leader of the 
Democratic party, was given on March 7, 1939, at the end of a 
week's heated Senate debate on the issue of national defense. 

The Upper Chamber had before it the Army Expansion Bill. 
The House had approved in short order the regular War Department 
appropriation calling for an expenditure of half a billion dollars. 

The President's emergency national defense program, as recom- 
mended in his special message to Congress on January 12, 1939, 
had gone through the House practically intact except for the elimina- 
tion of the Guam submarine base This bill was in two sections - 
one for the Army, another for the Navy. The Army section, involv- 
ing an appropriation of $358,000,000, to be spent chiefly m increas- 
ing the Army air force wing to 6000 planes, first came up for Senate 
consideration. The members seized upon the bill proposing an 
unprecedented peace time emergency defense program, as an excuse to 
debate the administration's foreign policy. Issues of maintaining 
neutrality, applying sanctions against aggressors, supporting democratic 
countries, and of voting huge expenditures for defense were battled 
back and forth. 

The length of Senator Barkley's argument, interrupted as it was 
by remarks from Clark, of Missouri, Norris, of Nebraska, Johnson, 
of California, and others, prevents its complete inclusion here. The 
first section is reprinted in full At the conclusion of the discussion 
the Senate passed the bill (H R. 3791) with 77 yeas, 8 nays, and 
11 not voting. 

Mr. President, I do not intend to quote from it, but only 
to refer to the annual message of the President to the Con- 
gress of the United States delivered on the 4th day of last 
January, which fits into the policy that he announced in 
Giautauqua, the policy that he announced on the 4th of 
March, 1933, the policy that he announced in Chicago in 
1937, and his foreign policy epitomized in the excellent 
statement he gave out to the press only a few weeks ago. 

What is that policy? 

i Congressional Record. 84: no 46:3339-43, March 7, 1939. By permis- 
sion of the author. 


On the 22d day of January we heard read the great and 
immortal address of George Washington, in which he coun- 
seled us against entangling alliances Most of us quote 
Washington and most of us quote Jefferson as the devil 
quotes the Bible for his own purposes, and frequently leaves 
out the most significant quotations in the context of that 
which we desire to use. Jefferson is frequently quoted as 
having remarked that "that government is best that governs 
least," without any regard to the context of what Jefferson 
was talking about. He was talking about an ideal society in 
which all men recognize the rights of all other men, and 
said that in such a society the least government is the best 
government, because it inflicts its orders and its regulations 
in the smallest possible degree upon the people over whom 
that government reigns. But in one of his great letters, 
written in 1824 or 1825, only a year or two prior to his 
death, Jefferson said he believed that all constitutions ought 
to be changed every 20 years, that there ought to be auto- 
matic provisions in them for their change, because he said 
no dead generation has any right to bind a living generation. 
Nobody ever quotes that from Jefferson 

In his Farewell Address, George Washington counseled us 
against permanent entangling alliances, and then almost in 
the same breath said we may rely upon temporary alliances 
in particular emergencies for the protection of the rights of 
the United States. 

Mr. President, so far as I recall, we have never had an 
entangling alliance with any nation, either permanent or 
temporary. When, in response to the call of liberty and 
justice, in 1898 we fought the Spanish-American War, 
although the immediate occasion for the declaration of war 
was the blowing up of the battleship Nimne in the harbor of 
Habana, fundamentally that situation arose out of the desire 
of the American people to abolish a festering sore of brutality 
and iniquity and despotism in the Western Hemisphere; but 
there was no alliance, either before, during, or after that war. 


There was no alliance with Cuba There was no alliance 
with any South or Central American nation. There was no 
alliance with the Philippine Islands. There was no alliance 
in the World War ; but, if there had been, it would not have 
been in violation of the Farewell Address of George Wash- 
ington, because, while inveighing against permanent alliances 
and giving the reasons therefor, he in effect counseled tempo- 
rary alliances whenever the circumstances might justify them, 
growing out of conditions that might exist at the time. But 
in spite of the fact that General Washington apparently 
counseled temporary alliances, there has never been even a 
temporary alliance between the United States and any other 
nation that bound us to engage in armed conflict, to go to 
war to protect them or to protect anybody else, or even 
ourselves. We entered into the World War as the result 
of conditions that had accumulated for two and one-half years 
We were associated with the Allies in the prosecution of that 
war, but there was no alliance, either openly or secretly, that 
took us into that war, or bound us by the terms of its 

We asserted our own independence as a nation when the 
war had concluded. Whether wisely or unwisely, we need not 
now debate, we asserted our independence m the matter of 
the solution of the world problems which came as a result of 
that war, and finally entered into a separate treaty with 
Germany and Austria in the settlement of the war. 

What is our foreign policy, Mr. President'* First, the 
President said, "We are against any entangling alliances, obvi- 
ously." Of course we are. We have always been. We have 
never entered into one. We are not a party to any entangling 
alliance today, and I daresay that whatever may be the 
exigencies of our defense in the future, whatever may be the 
requirements of our National Government to protect not only 
our people and our liberty and our traditions, but whatever 
activities we may be called upon to indulge in to protect the 
Monroe Doctrine, or all the things that are associated with 
the Monroe Doctrine, it will not be done as the result of any 


alliance between our nation and any other nation, but will 
be done in the protection of our interests, will be done in the 
protection of our civilization, will be done in carrying out the 
theory of the Monroe Doctrine, that any effort on the part 
of any European or, I might add, Asiatic nation to gain 
a foothold in the Western Hemisphere would be regarded as 
an unfriendly act by the United States. Of course we are 
opposed to entangling alliances, and the President is opposed 
to them. 

No. 2. "We are in favor of the maintenance of world 
trade for all nations, including ourselves " 

Mr. President, I need not go into any detail in discussing 
the desire for world trade. I need not call the attention of 
the Senate and of the country to the indispensability of inter- 
national trade. There has never been a great nation, com- 
mercial or military, which did not have its ships plying the 
Seven Seas carrying to the waiting hungry, naked, and want- 
ing nations of the world the products of its labor in field and 

I need not call attention to the fact that international law 
has so sanctioned international trade that even in time of 
war it protects trade carried by the ships of one nation to 
another nation, subject to certain reservations with respect 
to contraband of war, and search and seizure of ships, in 
order to prevent the enemy from obtaining supplies. 

I need not expatiate upon the desire of this administration 
to bring about an increase in world trade. I need not refer 
to the fact that a decade ago, almost by our own example, 
barriers were erected around nations declaring themselves 
self-sufficient, announcing to mankind that they would 
neither sell nor buy, that they were a land unto themselves, 
and did not need their neighbors I need not refer to the 
disaster which came over the world as a result of that policy, 
which was followed by other nations after the example had 
been set by one of the greatest nations in the world. 

I need not refer to the fact that our great Secretary of 
State, Cordell Hull, who will go down in history as one of the 


great Secretaries of State of the American Republic, has de- 
voted himself intelligently and patriotically to lowering some 
of these artificial barriers, so that the products of mankind 
may find distribution among those who need them and do not 
have them. Of course, we believe in international trade. 

No 3. "We are in complete sympathy with every effort 
made to reduce or limit armaments/' 

Can anyone deny that? Can anyone deny that we took 
the initiative soon after the World War, through our Secre- 
tary of State, now the great Chief Justice of the United 
States, to assemble here in Washington a conclave repre- 
senting the great nations of the world in an effort to relieve 
the tax-burdened men and women of the world of taxation, 
and the burdens of armaments, in order that we might escape 
from the incentive or the inducement to war? And when 
that conclave had concluded its deliberations and had entered 
into a treaty providing for the 5-5-3 ratio as between the 
United States, England, Japan, and others, we rejoiced 
in the belief, we were spurred on with the hope, that, after 
all, there had come a reversion in the trend of international 
relationships, and that the suffering men and women of the 
world who are not responsible for war or for its disasters or 
its hazards or its catastrophes might, after a while, lift their 
bended backs and look the sun in the face, and feel that, after 
all, civilization and Christianity had come to their relief in 
lifting these burdens from their shoulders. How we rejoiced 
in the consummation of that treaty. Can anyone deny or 
doubt that it has been our policy from the beginning to 
encourage the limitation of armaments'' 

Then, when the Nine Power Treaty was entered into, and 
when, under the leadership of a great French statesman, 
Aristide Briand, and another great American Secretary of 
State, Mr. Frank B. Kellogg, nearly all the nations of the 
world entered into an agreement to abolish war as a means 
of advancing their national policy, those of us who love peace 
and hate war, those of us who desire to see the inventive 
genius of mankind converged upon the solution of social 


and economic problems, those of us who desire to take away 
the slavery from children in future generations who are in 
advance committed to a policy which may result in war, 
again shouted our hosannas and our hallelujahs across the 
world, which recognized the futility of war, because it had 
entered into an agreement encompassing nearly all the nations 
of mankind to abolish war as a means of national policy. 
No one can deny that it has been our policy to advocate 
limitation of armaments. 

No. 4 Said the President 

"As a nation, as American people, we are sympathetic 
with the peaceful maintenance of political, economic, and 
social independence of all nations in the world " 

No one can deny that statement. No one can controvert 
the assertion that that is our policy, and has always been our 
policy, though at times in the past historians have criticized 
the course of the American Republic in marching across the 
Western Hemisphere and taking into its arms the body of 
the midcontment between the two oceans. When the War 
with Spam was over, there were those in our country who 
announced that they were in favor of a policy which would 
take us on to Panama, on to Mexico, on to Central America, 
and when the Panama Canal had been completed there were 
important people in this country who advocated our taking 
every foot of land between here and Panama, in order that 
there might never be any occasion for any foreign nation to 
set foot upon the part of America which might be contiguous 
to the Panama Canal. 

Happily we have followed no such policy; happily we do 
not believe in any such policy, and happily there is not a foot 
of land in the Western Hemisphere which we desire from 
any nation Yet, as the Senator from Idaho stated a few 
few days ago, the Monroe Doctrine is a doctrine which was 
instigated and inspired by an enlightened selfishness 

I do not believe there is any considerable body of Ameri- 
can sentiment which would be in favor of the abandonment 
of the Monroe Doctrine, for if in 1823 the obtaining of a 


foothold by any other nation in the Western Hemisphere 
could have been regarded as an unfriendly act on the part of 
that nation toward the United States, certainly today it would 
be more dangerous than it was 116 years ago for any such 
nation to obtain a foothold in the continent of America. 

So, Mr. President, I do not think it is necessary for us 
meticulously to examine the statements of our Government 
in order to prove that our foreign policy is a policy inspired 
by the desire for peace, and yet a policy inspired by the 
desire to protect and defend democracy, under which we 
have lived for 150 years, for the inauguration of which our 
ancestors did not fear to fight, and for the preservation of 
which our people for 150 years have been willing to make 
whatever sacrifice might be necessary not only to preserve 
democracy for ourselves, but to advance it among the people 
of the world. 



Senator Lee delivered this speech in the Senate on Tuesday, 
February 28, 1939, upon renewal of debate on the bill (H.R. 3791) 
to provide more effectively for the national defense by carrying out 
the recommendations of the President in his message of January 12, 
1939. Senator Clark of Idaho gave a lengthy and eloquent indictment 
of war. Senator Lee, following immediately, talked more specifically 
in defense of the amendment to provide for 6000 airplanes. His 
address was one of the ablest of this first session of the Seventy-Sixth 
Congress. At its conclusion he introduced, for reference to the 
Military Affairs Committee, a bill (S 1650) "to promote peace and 
the national defense through a more equal distribution of the burdens 
of war by drafting the use of money according to ability to lend to 
the Government." 

Mr President, the primary purpose of this bill is to pro- 
vide a means of financing war. It has several purposes. One 
is to prevent profiteering. One is to supply the necessary 
sinews of war. Every nation that depends upon the voluntary 
system of financing a war, if the war last long, finds itself 
confronted with the necessity of issuing paper fiat money, 
and breaks down its own financial system Great Britain came 
nearer financing a war on the pay-as-you-go basis than any 
other nation has yet done, and Great Britain was able to pay 
only 36 per cent; and by the time the war ended, Great Brit- 
ain was paying five per cent interest on her bonds on the vol- 
untary basis. The longer a war goes, the darker the future 
looks, the more difficult it is to coax enough money out of 
hiding to finance the war. Therefore, there should be a law 
that will compel the financial support of a war which is just 
as strict and just as rigid as the law that compels the man- 
power of a country to support the war. 

1 Congressional Record. 84: no 40-2829-2832, February 28, 1939. By per- 
mission of Senator Lee. 


That is what is provided by the bill I have introduced. It 
provides for a draft of capital. There are only two ways in 
which the Government can get money from the people. 
One is to borrow it from them, and the other is to take it 
away from them. If we take it away from them, that is 
taxes, in which event we do not intend to give it back. 
There are two kinds of loans. One is voluntary, and the 
other is mandatory. This bill provides for a mandatory loan 
in proportion to each individual's ability to pay; and it 
limits the interest rate to one per cent, instead of letting it 
rise with each successive issue of bonds, with the result that 
the longer the war goes, the higher the interest rate becomes. 
The bill prevents profiteering in the field of financing war. 

We have already paid $12,000,000,000 of interest alone 
on the bonds of the last war, and we cannot touch any of 
that money by taxation, because it is tax-exempt. We can- 
not reach the profits of financing war when it is financed 
with tax-exempt, voluntary bonds. This bill provides a 
method of financing war on a basis as mandatory as the law 
which calls men to the colors. 

We cannot pay as we go in case of war. France tried it. 
France was able to pay only 17 per cent, and she broke her 
economic fabric and ruined her franc. Germany ruined her 
mark, and broke down inside before she broke down on the 
Hindenburg line. Therefore, while we are considering meth- 
ods of national defense that cost money, this is a method of 
national defense that would not cost us a dime, and I hope 
it can be brought before this body this year and passed. It 
would strengthen us. It would have a tremendous psycho- 
logical effect upon a foreign foe, when they look upon 
America as a potential victim, to see on the books a statute, 
a sleeping giant that would rise to strength upon the dec- 
laration of war, that would give the Government power to 
finance a war to the full extent of America's ability to pay. 
Then it would have a tremendous effect in causing any 
nation which is too ambitious to pause before declaring war 
upon the United States. It would mean that the United 


States could get money without delay or embarrassment It 
would mean that there would be no unconscionable profits 
after the war. It would mean that every soldier who served 
would feel that the money that paid for his clothes and his 
ammunition and his food was not a subject for profiteering 
It would strengthen America in the eyes of the people, who 
were so disgusted with the unconscionable profits that re- 
sulted from the last war that they swore down in their 
hearts that they would look twice before they supported any 
future war if it meant filling the pockets of certain interests 
as the last war did 

It would strengthen us, in my opinion, more than these 
airplanes would strengthen us to pass a bill that would say 
to the financier, "If we have war it is going to cost you If 
we have war, it may break you " It would simply put them 
on notice that if there is war, there will be no profits. 

At the time of the last war we borrowed 50-cent dollars 
and paid back 100-cent dollars, or 136-cent dollars, as my 
colleague the senior Senator from Oklahoma [MR THOMAS} 
has pointed out. When we borrowed those dollars, due to 
inflation, a dollar would buy only 50 cents worth of goods. 
We borrowed 50-cent dollars. We paid back, after things 
became more normal, 136-cent dollars, with the result that 
there came the tremendous profits in the financing of the 
war, which we cannot touch, under any voluntary system of 
raising money from tax-exempt bonds 

Why have a voluntary system for raising money any more 
than have a voluntary system for raising an army of men? 
The War Department, over the signature of Assistant Secre- 
tary of War Louis Johnson, says that a war, in order to be 
successful, must have the support of the people, therefore 
they do not favor my proposal, because if we have the sup- 
port of the people, we can get the money. Why would not 
the same argument apply to the raising of an army, if it 
applies to the raising of money ? 

Ex-service men, who know war better than anyone else, 
have, since the close of the last war, asked for a bill to draft 


capital. Every ex-service organization has gone on record 
time and again for a bill which would draft capital in case 
of war. 

The argument is advanced by certain people who do not 
want such a bill that we do not need it, that we can raise 
the money. We can raise it, and then we can pay the tre- 
mendous profits. 

While we were in France serving for a dollar a day and 
a chance to die, 22,000 millionaires were made in this coun- 
try, according to the statement of the chairman of the Sen- 
ate Munitions Committee [MR. NYE]. That is what is in 
the minds and craws of the people of this country regarding 
war. It is not that any red-blooded Americans and they 
are all red-blooded would object to a defense sufficient to 
protect us from aggression. It is merely that we were so 
sickened by the story of the profits made during the last war 
that we are gun-shy when it comes to appropriations of 
money for war materials or to defend our country against 
an aggressor. 

Mr. President and Senators, I say that if we pass legisla- 
tion such as the bill I have just introduced, which will pre- 
vent profits from war, it will do more to gain the support of 
the people of the United States behind a program of national 
defense than any other thing we can do. 

We ought to go a step further and pass one of the bills 
recommended after the Senate Munitions Committee hear- 
ings. Several Senators have such bills. The Senator from 
Texas [MR. CONNALLY] has such a bill, and one was intro- 
duced by the Senator from North Dakota [MR. NYE], the 
Senator from Missouri [MR. CLARK], the Senator from Wash- 
ington [MR. BONE], and the Senator from Michigan [MR. 
VANDENBERG]. I have joined several Senators in introducing 
such a bill, a bill which calls for a tax which will recover the 
profits which result from war. We can reach all the profits in 
war in that way, except profits which result from financing 
the war, and we cannot reach them because the bonds repre- 
senting them are tax exempt and the interest from them is 


tax exempt. That is why I am arguing today for a measure 
which will increase our national defense without a dime of 
cost. Such a bill would tend to equalize the burdens of war. 

In the last war we drafted men but we begged for money. 
We called men to the colors by law. We bed them by grace 
We raised an army of men by force; we supported them by 
supplication an outrage to the majesty of the flag itself. 

The Constitution provides that "Congress shall have power 
to declare war," and, skipping some provisions, "to make all 
laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into 
execution the foregoing powers/* And what was provided 
among the "foregoing powers"? They provided that Con- 
gress shall have the power "to raise and support an army," 
and the supporting of an army is just as much a part of the 
Constitution as is the raising of an army There is the con- 
stitutional mandate for raising the finances of war by as much 
force as that employed in raising the manpower. When we 
do that, people will no longer worry about the unconscionable 
profits which result from war. Such profits were made in the 
last war, as they were made in the Civil War, and as will 
happen in the next war unless we do something now to 
prevent it. 

I thank the Senate, 



This speech was delivered in the Senate on February 28, 1939- 
Senator Nye, immediately followed Senator Lee (see preceding 
speech), and recalled the debate to the bill before the House, on 
national defense The Senator occupied the floor the remainder of 
the day, yielding frequently to his colleagues. The section of his 
day's debate which follows is typical of his treatment of the theme. 
This subject Mr. Nye has repeatedly and with great rhetorical success 
discussed in the Senate and over the air, during the past twelve 
months. For the outcome of the debate see the Introduction to 
Senator Barkley's speech, supra 

Mr. President, until the recent departure from that spirit 
of fear which gripped the country for so long, coolness and 
common sense have had anything but a right-of-way in our 
considerations. We have been fearing that we were unpre- 
pared for emergencies which might arise, and now, in light 
of all the preparing we have done, especially of more recent 
years, one is wont to ask when in the world we are ever going 
to be adequately prepared? Senators will remember that 
during these winter months representatives of the Govern- 
ment were talking, not of 5,500 and 6,000 planes, but of 
10,000 planes or 15,000 planes, of 20,000 planes. Were we 
to have that number of planes today there would still be an 
element of the people who would be counting our national 
defense wholly inadequate, 

A year or two years before we entered the World War, 
the war that was going to be the last war, it was costing us in 
the neighborhood of $300,000,000 a year to maintain a na- 
tional defense. This year the cost will be dose to $2,000,- 
000,000; and yet as large a proportion of our people are 
dissatisfied, fearful about the adequacy of our national de- 
fense, as were dissatisfied back in 1913, 1914, and 1915. 

1 Congressional Record. 84: no 2833-50, February 28, 1939. By per- 
mission, of Senator Nye. 


I have greater respect today for the American Military 
Establishment than I have ever entertained before. Except 
for the manner in which our military leaders stood up last 
winter against odds and fought against some rather uncer- 
tain proposals, only Heaven knows what the Congress would 
be confronted with at this time. The Army can be said very 
definitely to have stopped a stampede that was on its way to 
a very definite goal. 

As I have said, there has not been coolness and common 
sense entertained of late months. There has come through 
the winter the urge to repeal the neutrality law, or to amend 
it so as to give more power to someone to determine what 
the neutrality law ought to be made to operate against, or 
what it ought to be made to operate for all of it all the 
while in the name of neutrality. 

Mr. President, before men give themselves to the cause 
of repeal of the neutrality law, at least there ought to be 
willingness to afford the law a chance to demonstrate how 
much of a success it may be, or how much of a failure it 
may be. The truth of the matter is that it has not been given 
such a chance. There have been opportunities, there have 
been chances to invoke the neutrality law where it might have 
demonstrated itself, but that has not been done. In connec- 
tion with consideration of any proposal to repeal or amend 
the neutrality law, I wish that Americans might remember 
what was the first purpose of that law. Its first purpose was 
to serve the interests of the United States at peace, and the 
interests of no foreign nation or nations at war. 

Then, too, Mr. President, to demonstrate our uncertainty, 
the absence of any coolness, or the exercise of common sense, 
this winter has seen secret session after secret session, secret 
concealed operations after secret concealed operations, until 
the United States has been put in a state of jitters over what 
must be involved. 

Calling the Military Affairs Committees of the two 
Houses together to hear the Ambassadors from London and 
Paris could not have had any other effect. I do not know 


what was its purpose, but it could not have had any other 
effect than to cause an uncertainty of mind, to open up the 
American mind, and make it ready to receive a terrific pro- 
gram of armament. 

We have talked now of militarizing the Civilian Con- 
servation Corps We spend most madly for a peacetime 
preparation, when we cannot even hope to pay for such 
preparation out of the revenues of the Government being 
raised at this stage. We call every proponent of less hysteria 
"pro-Nazi." We make it difficult for critics to criticize any 
direction which might be pursued by our Government. Some 
people call the critics boobs and liars. When all the activi- 
ties of this last winter are taken together one is inclined to 
look around and wonder where George Creel may be con- 
cealed somewhere. It is time now to be hearing about some 
intercepted secret documents passing between dictators and 
other republics of this hemisphere It is about time to be 
hearing that the dictators are cutting the fingers off of chil- 
dren, and mutilating the bodies of mothers, women, and 
children in other parts of the world. That has been the 
stage which has been in the making this winter, it seems to 
me, and I for one am glad to see the American people catch- 
ing up with it, and to see a breaking away, as we are witness- 
ing a departure from the fear which has been gripping the 
country for a number of months past. 

Mr. President, what is it we are aiming at by this pro- 
posal to build 5,500 or 6,000 planes? Why must we have 
that number of planes ? What is it we are preparing for that 
requires any such national defense as that? One can only 
conclude that it must be the alleged preparation on the part 
of the dictatorships to conduct a war from the air. There is 
vast difference of opinion as to what is, for example, Ger- 
many's ability today. 

Major Elliott, an authority, declares that it is his belief 
that Germany's maximum of air strength today is about 3,500 
planes. Concurring with him in that opinion is a leading 


British air authority by the name of C. G Gray, who also 
estimates Germany's air force at approximately 3,500 planes. 

Recently I read an account of a debate in the French 
Chamber of Deputies, revealing the belief there that Ger- 
many possesses somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 planes. 
In the United States we have had an education all this winter 
to the effect that Germany has at least 9,000 or 10,000 planes. 
Is that what we are aiming at? Mr. President, if Germany 
has 10,000 active combat planes, it does not follow that we, 
from the standpoint of providing an adequate national de- 
fense, must needs have 10,000 combat planes. If our home, 
instead of being the United States, were France or England, 
I could hardly be as content as I now am with a lesser air 
force. Yet were I a resident of England or of France, I 
should not feel that my country had to have 10,000 airplanes 
to defend itself against a potential enemy that had 10,000 
airplanes That point is conceded by French authorities, who, 
it seems, have abandoned the thought of trying to match, 
plane for plane, what Germany, her neighbor, has The 
French are bent upon substituting quality for quantity and 
are quite content in their belief that they will be able success- 
fully to repulse any attack which may come from a neighbor 

Mr. President, the issue of national defense must of 
necessity involve primarily the question of foreign policy. It 
is difficult, if not impossible, for a Congress to provide a 
national defense if it does not know what the foreign policy 
is. I insist that this Congress does not know what is the 
foreign policy of the United States I insist that from the 
standpoint of a strict national defense, protecting ourselves 
against attack, we are not in need of what some authorities 
are insisting we shall have in the name of national defense, 
unless those authorities have attached something more than 
a requirement of national defense to our foreign policy. We 
say there are no entangling alliances As I said earlier today, 
I can point to none that my country has made with a foreign 
land. Yet I am wondering if there is any difference between 


entangling ourselves in foreign alliances and leading causes 
in which we seek to entangle other governments 

We are greatly disturbed about what certain dictatorships 
are making ready to do Abroad, on the part of countries 
for which we are showing a large solicitation, there is com- 
parative calmness; certainly not the same degree of fear that 
is being expressed in the United States A few weeks ago 
the British Prime Minister stood calmly and deliberately 
before an audience and coolly said, in effect, that it was not 
Great Britain's ox that was being gored in Europe, but Uncle 
Sam's. He said that it was not John Bull who had the stakes 
in the ring, but that it was Uncle Sam whose stakes were 

The British Prime Minister said, in effect, that perhaps 
the time has come for Britain to stand with the United States 
in the cause of defending democracy the world over. It has 
one wondering, if there is to be another war, whose war it 
is to be, whether it is to be Britain's or whether it is to be 
ours. One would guess, if he listened to leadership abroad, 
that if there is to be another war for democracy, the war 
must be led by the United States, with the privilege in the 
United States, of course, of meeting the entire cost of 

I am more and more convinced that there will be no war 
in Europe this spring, this year, or next year, unless the 
United States encourages, urges, and eggs Europe on to it. 
There will be no war in Europe unless the United States 
shows a definite will to help out when war comes, and an 
inclination to finance it. There will surely be a war in 
Europe when the United States gives the word "Go" and 
gives Europe reason to anticipate that the United States will 
be standing by and ready to go on when the hour comes. 

... I regret that the interruptions of the afternoon have 
occasioned my taking as much of the time of the Senate as I 
have taken. In conclusion I once again wish to voice my 
desire to see the United States of America afforded an ade- 
quate national defense sufficient to repulse any attack by any 


foreign foe or group of foes, to repulse any attack upon the 
North American Continent or the South American Continent; 
but I insist there is no threat inviting the degree of madness 
which is involved or has been involved this winter in our 
consideration of the question of providing an adequate na- 
tional defense. 

I am not disposed to believe that America needs 5,000 or 
6,000 planes. Where is the threat that is calling for such an 
outlay, for such a number of planes within the next two 
years ? I fail to see it. I wish and I hope that somehow oppor- 
tunity will be afforded to win rather material amendments to 
the pending bill that will reduce the number of planes, to be 
built under the present plan for national defense, to such a 
point that we can have consistent output within the next year 
at least, and then be sure that we are not tying our hands in 
such a way that a year from now we will find ourselves with 
a lot of obsolete planes on our hands, when new devices are 
ready for development which would give us the greatest 
advantage if only we could possess ourselves of them then. 



Senator Clark gave this debate on March 3, 1939, as part of the 
"fervid oratory," as Senator Minton put it, "which would lead one 
to believe that the matter before the Senate at the present time was 
a resolution declaring war." Senator Nye, earlier in the day, con- 
tinued his line of attack as illustrated in his speech of February 28th. 
Senator Holman replied Senator Clark finally obtained the floor 
and through a series of interruptions developed an able criticism of 
the proposal for 6000 planes. Senator Lee replied and so closed the 
debate for the day For the vote on March 7th, see the Introductory 
Note to Senator Barkley's speech. 

Mr. President, I desire particularly to address myself to a 
discussion of the committee amendment No. 1, which repre- 
sents the increase as I see it, without rhyme or reason in 
the number of planes authorized by the pending measure, 
from 5,500 to 6,000. I shall attempt presently to show that 
the increase is not supported by any evidence whatever ad- 
duced before either the House Committee on Military Affairs, 
or the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, and represents 
simply a gratuitous attempt on the part of the Army and the 
supporters of a tremendous armament of taking an additional 

Before I enter into a discussion of the committee amend- 
ment, however, Mr. President, in view of the range which 
the debate has taken, I deem it proper to make a few expres- 
sions of my own views with regard to the implications of the 
bill as regards our general military policy and our general 
foreign policy. 

Mr. President, I am in favor of adequate national defense. 
I take it that every patriotic American, except a few mis- 
guided but patriotic individuals, who may conceive that it is 

1 Congressional Record 84: no 43 -3137-43, March 3, 1939. By permission 
of Senator Clark. 


possible for any nation to throw away all of its arms and 
trust simply to the general good will I take it that every 
patriotic American, except those few individuals, is in favor 
of adequate national defense. 

Mr. President, we come down then to the question of 
what is adequate national defense. As has been asked several 
times in the present debate on the floor of the Senate, For 
what is the defense to be adequate? Before proceeding to 
the discussion of this particular amendment, Mr. President, 
I should like to record my view that the only purpose for 
which our national defense should be adequate, the only 
purpose for which we are justified in making authorizations 
or appropriations, is for the defense of the United States 

Mr. President, I do not believe that the United States, 
under any theory whatever, is justified in using the money 
of the taxpayers of the United States to provide an army 
and a navy and an aviation force for the purpose of policing 
the sea lanes for the protection of the British Empire or the 
French Empire, or for the protection of the possessions of 
any foreign country whatever. 

Mr. President, if we are willing to maintain a sufficient 
naval and military force to enable us to conduct a war 7,000 
miles away from home, let us say in China which, according 
to all naval authorities, would require us to provide a navy 
at least three times as big as Japan's, and to maintain an 
overwhelming military force if we are going to have any 
contemplation of doing a thing like that, any provision we 
have ever made for naval and military forces, or anyone that 
has ever been suggested in this country, would be pitifully 

If we propose to fight a war in China to protect Great 
Britain in its possession of Hong Kong, which Great Britain 
wrested from the Chinese in the infamous "opium war" by 
precisely the same methods by which Japan has been taking 
territory in China during the past three or four years ; if we 
intend to wage war in Africa to protect France in her posses- 


;ion of Tunisia, which France acquired by precisely the same 
methods by which Italy acquired Ethiopia; we are going to 
need both an army and a navy and an air force far greater 
:han anyone in this country has ever dared propose 

If we are going to police the sea lanes to protect the "great 
democracies of the world," so-called, in the possession which 
Jiey have asserted and maintained by force, there is no limit 
:o the expenditures of men and blood and money and debt 
which the United States will be called upon to make. 

On the other hand, if we are going to stay at home and 
attend to our own business, if we are going to be prepared 
:o repel aggression from any source whatever on the United 
States and our immediate possessions which make up the de- 
fense system of the United States, then it seems to me we 
are being led into a situation of hysteria in which we might 
very readily appropriate a great deal more money and make 
a great deal more preparation than would be reasonably 

Mr. President, I abhor as much as does anybody on this 
floor, or anybody in the United States, the idea of dictator- 
ship, whether it is in Germany or Italy or Russia or any- 
where else. I hate the treatment of the Jews in Germany. 
I hate the treatment of Christians in both Germany and 
Russia. I hate the methods of murder anywhere. It is very 
much more agreeable to my conceptions of governmental 
practice and of proper government for me to observe the 
so-called democracies of England and France than to observe 
the dictatorships, whether Communist or Fascist. But it is 
to be remembered, Mr. President, when we talk about these 
democracies, and the obligation we owe to these democracies 
to defend them and protect them, that so far as their inter- 
national relations are concerned, so far as the conquest of 
lesser peoples is concerned, the great democracies of Great 
Britain and France have been as imperialistic and as ruthless 
in their oppression of minorities and in their subjugation of 
weaker peoples as any nation that has ever existed in the 


I can remember, when I was a bo7, that I used to go 
down to the old Columbia Theater on F Street which was 
then a new theater, the best in town, in those days nearly 
every Sunday afternoon to hear some of the leading Amer- 
ican statesmen and publicists inveigh on the subject of "]6h& 
Bull's crime/' That was the subjugation of the Transvaal 
Republic under old "Oom Paul" Kruger by the ruthless, im- 
perialist British Government. 

So I say, Mr. President, that as between the so-called 
democracies and the so-called dictatorships, my sympathy 
is entirely with the so-called democracies; I wish them well; 
but I am not willing to send one American boy away from 
the United States to die on foreign fields in quarrels between 
rival imperialisms which do not concern us. 

Mr. President, I heard it said on this floor by an eminent 
Senator whom we all respect, and for whom we all have 
affection, "I am not afraid to fight a foreign war. I am 
not afraid to send all the boys in the United States to fight 
on foreign fields." Mr President, I am not so brave. I 
am afraid. I, myself, am not afraid to go again; but I 
am afraid of the suggestion being made on this floor and 
in other places that it is justifiable to send American boys 
halfway around the world to die to protect the paltry invest- 
ments of the Standard Oil Co , or to die to protect England 
or France or any other foreign country in any of its suzerainty 
over subject peoples. 

Mr President, more than twenty years ago, just before the 
entrance of the United States into the World War, I sat in 
a room in the Senate wing of the Capitol, the room now 
occupied by the Committee on Naval Affairs but at that time 
the office of the Committee on Foreign Relations. The great 
Senator from Missouri, one of my greatest predecessors in 
this body a man whose seat I am proud to occupy Senator 
William J. Stone, was then chairman of the great Senate 
Committee on Foreign Relations. I sat in his office in con- 
versation with him. He had been my friend since my early 
boyhood. I saw him get up and walk over to the window 


and stand looking out, and I heard him say, "Bennett, we 
are going to have a war. I know it. I am going to vote 
against it. I am not foolish enough to think that my feeble 
influence will keep us from getting into the war; and it is 
going to be the worst thing that ever happened to this 
country." He said, "It is not the lives it will cost, although, 
God knows, it is enough to break a man's heart to think of 
boys like you going away. Some of you won't come back. 
Some of you who do come back will wish to God you had not 
come back. Some of you will come back wounded and 
maimed and blinded and worthless for life; but that is not 
the worst of it." He said, "It is not the money it will cost, 
although your grand-grandchildren, if you get back and have 
any, will not see the paying-off of this debt. It is the fact 
that after the war is over, after we have won the war and 
we shall win the war, because we are too big and powerful 
to get into a war at this stage of the game and not decide 
it we shall never again have the same sort of country that we 
had before." 

Mr President, I have thought about that conversation a 
thousand times; and I think of that conversation on the part 
of Senator Stone as that of a man who was smit with 
prophecy, a prophecy which has been too true. We never 
have had again the same sort of country we had before. We 
never again will have the same sort of country we had before. 

Mr President, war itself is the great enemy, the invincible 
enemy of democracy, and the invincible enemy of liberalism. 
Fascism on the one hand and communism on the other are 
the products of war. When I heard an eminent Senator on 
this floor on yesterday say that he was not afraid to fight a 
foreign war, that he was not afraid to send all the boys in 
this country to fight on foreign shores, I shuddered; not alone 
because I have three boys of my own; not alone because I 
have a knowledge and a feeling for the millions of American 
boys who would be sent away; not alone because I once took 
boys with me in 1917 and promised their fathers and mothers 
that I would take care of them, some of whom did not come 


back; but more especially, Mr. President, because of my feel- 
ing that if the United States were once again to engage in a 
foreign war we ourselves might win the war against foreign 
dictatorships and emerge as having lost the war by being 
ourselves a totalitarian state. 

Mr. President, I merely desire to say that I do not want 
any vote cast for the pending measure, which I regard, in 
comparison with some of the grandiose schemes proposed by 
the Assistant Secretary of War and others, as an essentially 
modest proposal I do not want a vote for this bill to be 
taken in any quarter of this country or in any quarter of 
the globe as being an endorsement of the statements made 
by the American Ambassador to France, or the President 
pro tempore of this body, the senior Senator from Nevada 
[MR. PITTMAN], or the junior Senator from Kentucky [MR. 
LOGAN] on yesterday, or anyone else, that the United States 
is or will be at any stage prepared to enter into an alliance 
or an understanding or any sort of agreement which will 
justify any nation whatever on the face of this globe in 
expecting us to come in and rake their chestnuts out of the 
fire for them. 




This address President Day of Cornell University gave before 
the mid-year graduating class of 149 at the University of Buffalo 
on February 22, 1939. The speech was widely republished, for 
example, in the United States News and in Vital Speeches. For 
editorial comment, see, for example, "The Gtizen and Pressure 
Groups" in the New York Times of February 24th, 1939. This 
speech is selected from many given recently by educators who have 
attempted an analysis of dangers to democracy. 

The ideals of democracy have long been the ideals of the 
American people. We accept democracy as a matter of tradi- 
tion. So firmly are we committed to it that in much of our 
thinking we simply take it for granted. Nevertheless there 
are growing signs that we are holding our faith in democracy 
somewhat less assuredly than formerly. More and more fre- 
quently questions are being raised. Can democracy be made 
to work successfully in the rapidly changing social order of 
the 20th century? Can democracy meet the challenge of the 
dictatorial governments? Is democracy after all but a passing 
phase in the never-ending evolution of human society a 
phase that properly belongs to the period of unprecedented 
economic expansion witnessed especially during the 19th 

Beyond doubt there are real threats to democracy in cur- 
rent world developments. Thomas Mann, in his stirring lec- 
ture on the "Coming Victory of Democracy/' has stated cate- 
gorically: "Throughout the world it has become precarious to 
take democracy for granted even in America." In what 
ways, or by reason of what forces is the present position of 

1 Through the courtesy of the author. Text supplied by President Day. 


American democracy precarious'* This is the question to 
which I propose to address your attention this morning. No 
question confronting the American people seems to be quite 
so important. 

In the minds of some, the most serious threat to American 
democracy lies in the armed forces of the great dictatorships 
of Europe and the Far East. How can the United States, 
which has never taken its defenses any too seriously, hope to 
cope with the huge armies, the powerful navies, the over- 
powering air forces of a combination of such nations as 
Germany, Italy and Japan? And how can the American 
people expect not to be attacked by a combination of such 
powers when America is in possession of so much of the 
world's wealth and they of relatively so little? According 
to this view it is only a question of time only a question 
of our turn in the corporative schedule of conquests when 
we, like the others, shall be overwhelmed by vastly superior 
armed forces, and American democracy will be no more. 

While this line of reasoning may serve certain political 
purposes, it remains totally unconvincing. For at least three 
reasons, we are not likely to be the object of direct attack by 
the dictatorships under present conditions First, our geo- 
graphic position across the great oceans gives us enormous 
advantages in defense which even modern technology in war- 
fare can hardly overcome. Second, in potentials of man 
power and material supplies, whatever our state of relative 
unpreparedness, we are at bottom a most formidable antag- 
onist. Third, we are known to be a nation of indomitable 
fighters when once we are thoroughly aroused, and no other 
country, however arrogant, is likely to take the direct initiative 
in drawing us into war 

No, the dictatorships do not seriously threaten us by direct 
attack; nevertheless they are a menace to American democ- 
racy in two important ways. In the first place, they may 
in their program of imperial expansion precipitate a general 
European war Such a conflict is almost certain to become 
a world war. with our own country sooner or later a par- 


tiapant on the side of the democracies. In the prosecution 
of such a war we should almost certainly have to abandon 
for the time being all pretense of maintaining democratic 
ways of living and transacting business. For the duration 
of the war, the United States would go authoritarian, like 
the opposing dictatorships What would happen afterwards 
to the form of American government remains to be seen. 
Would democratic ways of life be restored? Nobody knows. 
Therein lies one of the dilemmas of democracy Not to 
fight may mean the loss of democracy through humiliation 
and subjugation; to fight may mean the loss of democracy 
through unavoidable political transformations "to win the 
war." The dictatorships do threaten American democracy 
by putting to democracy everywhere this terrible riddle: To 
fight or not to fight, with the probable loss of democracy 
either way. 

The dictatorships menace American democracy in a second 
way; namely, in the propaganda they spread. With the 
Fascists and Nazis, democratic ideals are objects of scorn 
and contempt. Democracy is an outmoded form of society; 
the tides of human progress have left it stranded on the dry 
sands of the dead past. AH the charms of innovation and 
novelty are found in the new authoritarian regimes. Instead 
of being recognized as relapses into a discarded form of 
tyranny, they are held up as an example of a 20th century 
improvement of social organization. All the arts of modern 
propaganda are used to decry the shortcomings of democracy, 
and to glorify the accomplishments of authoritarianism. 
There is danger to American democracy in this if the forces 
of counter propaganda are not brought effectively into play. 
The time has passed when it is safe to take democracy for 

One of the threats to democracy which is most widely 
cited lies in the apparent consequences of modern science and 
technology. It is claimed that democracy could be expected 
to work, and did in fact work, quite satisfactorily so long as 
the economic system was predominately rural and agricul- 


tural, and in its industrial phase was largely in the hands 
of individual enterprisers. The expansion of industry and 
commerce, the development of the modern corporation, the 
emergence of the great consolidations or trusts, the revolu- 
tionary changes in technology, all these are supposed to have 
set the stage for a different political and social order. De- 
mocracy must, in short, now make way for a better form 
of social organization, just as democracy itself displaced 
earlier and outmoded forms. 

There is much about this argument that carries weight. 
Changes in the economic situation, notably since the Great 
War, are flinging a challenge at democracy which is not 
easily met. Starvation in the midst of plenty, idleness in 
the face of need, unemployment despite a desire and a ca- 
pacity for work, these are poisons no body politic can long 
withstand. If they cannot be substantially eliminated under 
democracy, an ultimate change in the social order is inescap- 

There is still reason to believe, however, that the major 
economic problems of the day can be solved under democratic 
procedures. That a larger measure of wise forward-planning 
and of subsequent effective control is requisite is self-evident. 
Excessive concentrations of power certainly have to be 
avoided; after all democracy depends upon the participation 
of free men. The resources of government in intelligence, 
integrity and technical competence have to be substantially 
enlarged The people have to gam greater understanding 
of what can be done, and what cannot be done, economically. 
These tasks, however difficult, are not impossible, and I, for 
one, believe democracy is capable of performing them. It 
is not in this quarter that the more serious threats to American 
democracy are to be found. 

What of corruption and greed in our political life, do 
these seriously endanger American democratic institutions ? 
The answer is "no." Dishonest practices, upon the whole, 
appear and reappear in American government with dis- 
heartening persistence, but over the years steady improvement 


is discernable; and an impressive record of conscientious and 
faithful discharge of heavy public responsibilities accumulates. 
Public administration in the United States is largely honest 
administration, and is progressively becoming more so. We 
may be discouraged at times that the standards of morality 
and personal integrity in public life have not risen more 
rapidly than they have. The fact remains that at this time 
no serious threat to American democracy comes from this 

Some concern may reasonably be felt, however, over a 
closely related phase of American life, namely, the character 
and capacity of popular leadership in the United States of 
recent years. There appears to be a growing disposition 
among our so-called leaders to follow rather than to lead. 
The main idea seems to be to find out first what the voters 
want and then to serve as their pliant spokesmen. The 
result is that our political life becomes more and more a 
competition of interests, less and less a contest of principles. 
Increasingly we succumb to the attacks of self -seeking or 
fanatical propaganda. Statesmen who will accept political 
defeat, if necessary political elimination, for the sake of 
principle are likely to be thought mid- Victorian. It requires 
great fortitude to stand against the powerful pressure groups 
that have come to crowd our political arena, and the qualities 
of political leadership under the influences of such innovations 
as the direct primary, the initiative and referendum, the 
telegram barrage, the radio broadcast, the public opinion 
survey to mention only a few of the most potent factors 
give certain signs of deterioration. Herein lies a real threat 
to American democracy. No government dominated by 
pressure groups and propaganda is likely to serve the purposes 
of common justice and public well-being, and no democracy 
is likely to live durably that is not blessed with a wise, fear- 
less and unselfishly devoted public leadership. 

All this points to another deep-seated factor that pro- 
foundly affects the prospects of our American society. Can 
we avoid excessive leveling down in our effort to establish 


a system of more complete social justice? In endeavoring 
to eliminate inequitable disparities of human circumstance, 
it is very easy indeed to provoke sentiments of envy and 
malice which give rise to measures that over-shoot the mark. 
Humankind, after all, is not all of one pattern or grade. 
Individual differences of strength and ability, of industry and 
courage, are great It will be a sorry day for democracy 
when these relatively large individual differences are ignored 
or seriously neglected m the rewards which society affords 
for sustained and constructive service Democracy needs to 
preserve certain of the differentials of human experience. 
Extreme equalitariamsm is a growing threat to American 
democratic ideals. 

Another factor in American life constitutes a persistent 
menace; that is, our ready resort to force In view of the 
conditions of frontier life, we doubtless come by this national 
trait naturally enough, the fact remains that it is time we 
outgrew it. There is a democratic way of dealing with social 
issues ; it involves discussion, persuasion, balloting, acceptance 
of the ballot results, continuing review, discussion, and if 
necessary, revision of the earlier action by the same process. 
This is the peaceful way of getting along together. A resort 
to violent or coercive ways of dealing with social conflict is 
a negation of democracy, and an admission that, for some 
reason, democracy is unable to deal effectively with its cur- 
rent problems. Premier Daladier, in the recent French crisis, 
had this to say "For myself, I consider that the best way 
to defend the republic, and I am a republican like every other 
man of feeling, is not to tolerate illegality, violence, and dis- 
order." The New York Times, commenting editorially upon 
the French crisis, took the following stand "Today the eyes 
of the world are on France. Much more is at stake than the 
fate of a one-day general strike, or the fate of the forty-hour 
week, or even the future of the Daladier Government. For 
what is being tested once more is the ability of one of the 
great democratic nations of the world to solve its internal 
problems peaceably. This is to say that what is being tested 
today in France is the democratic method itself. 


"Democracy depends for its successful working on re- 
straint, tolerance and compromise. Democratic government, 
precisely because it relies rather upon voluntary cooperation 
than upon force, must in the main enact laws that inspire 
cooperation rather than provoke resistance. The minority, 
precisely because democratic laws are passed in this spirit, 
owes at least its peaceful acquiescence in the final govern- 
mental decision, and should seek to change that decision by 
persuasion and not by defiance. 

"But in France in the last few years the spirit of com- 
promise and conciliation has steadily diminished. The Right 
and Left wings of opinion have been spreading farther apart. 
A proposal has only to be made by one side to be automati- 
cally denounced by the other. Fighting slogans and ultima- 
tums supplant quiet discussion and adjustment." 

We Americans take the resort to force too complacently. 
We neglect to cultivate assiduously the art of dispassionate, 
critical, fair-minded thinking about social issues. We fail to 
practice sufficiently the art of calm, open minded, and per- 
suasive discussion of controverted social problems. We must 
come to see more clearly how indispensable these arts are to 
the preservation of democracy, and how serious are the pos- 
sible consequences of their abandonment, in any connection 
whatever, for the ways of violence and force. 

Further threats to American democracy are to be found 
in the lack of social unity and discipline in our national life. 
In this respect the authoritarian governments have the de- 
mocracies at a great disadvantage. They know what they are 
after or at least think they do! and their peoples are 
thoroughly disciplined to these ends. The driving power 
which is thus placed at the disposal of the dictators is im- 
pressive indeed. Moreover the tonic effects for the individual 
that are to be had from a general sense of social solidarity 
must be frankly admitted. Aimlessness is a devastating afflic- 
tion for individual and nation alike. What the democracies 
need more than anything else at the moment is a clear con- 
sciousness of high purpose that will impart social unity and 
individual discipline. William James long since referred to 


this need as the moral equivalent of war The dictators have 
given the phrase an exceedingly concrete current meaning. 
Will the democracies, seeing more clearly their great role in 
the upward struggle of humanity, answer the challenge in 

They will if they can deal effectively with the most serious 
of all threats to democracy the indifference, complacency 
and ignorance of those who have shared democracy's benefits. 
As I said at the outset, we Americans simply take democracy 
for granted. We have no awareness of what we would suffer 
if our democratic privileges were removed. We fail to sense 
what espionage, terrorism, completely arbitrary and despotic 
rule would mean to us individually We make no sustained 
effort to understand what democracy is We are prone to 
think of it as a system of government rather than as a form 
of human relationships in which men and women of every 
class and creed live together in peace We fail to practice 
democracy in our daily living. We show no determination 
to make our individual contributions that democracy may be 
preserved and strengthened. We exhibit no lasting devotion 
to the common weal. From these deficiencies come the really 
serious threats to democracy in America 

Happily the nation is astir, and the forces which make for 
the defense of our free American institutions are at last 
gathering in formidable array. The cause for which America 
stands is the cause of humanity. It is a cause that ultimately, 
whatever the reverses, is bound to prevail May you young 
people, in the lives you individually lead in the times that 
lie ahead, steadfastly keep the faith of those who as founding 
fathers caught the vision of democracy in America. 



This address was given before the American Federation of 
Women's Clubs (by broadcast) on May 9, 1939. Miss Thompson, 
during the period of this volume, continued to be one of the few 
contemporary American women offered "several speaking engagements 
a day." Some of her recent subjects include "On the Freedom of 
Assembly," "Save Czechoslovakia," "Woman and International Peace," 
"On the German Press," "Urging Free Courts." In 1938 she pub- 
lished Dorothy Thompson's Political Guide, Her methods of defini- 
tion, clearly set forth in the book, are not earned out so fully in her 
speeches. Rather she usually proceeds by personal illustration and 
highly interesting if journalistic reflection on phases of her problem. 
This speech should be compared with her "Propaganda in the Modern 
World," given at the New York Herald-Tribune Forum on Current 
Problems, October 18, 1935 

We are certainly more governed by propaganda than we 
have ever been in our lifetimes. The propaganda depart- 
ments of governments are at least as important as their for- 
eign offices and, if reports are to be credited, cost hundreds 
of millions. 

The idea that governments should use the money of the 
taxpayers to sell themselves to their own people is now so 
generally accepted that nobody seems to get wrought up about 
it, even when those governments are democratic governments, 
like our own. Before the war, the Counsel on Public Rela- 
tions which is just a flossy name for a press agent was 
unknown in our own government. Today Washington is 
full of ex-newspaper men attached to every conceivable gov- 
ernment agency, whose job it is to prepare hand-outs for the 
press little pamphlets, brochures, and even quite handsome 
books, at the government's expense to tell the people who did 
or didn't elect them to do a job, just how well they are 
doing it. 

1 By permission of the author. Text supplied through the courtesy of 
Miss Thompson and of her secretary, Miss Madelaine Walker. 


Our Department of Agriculture used once to confine its 
printed matter entirely to telling farmers how to deal with 
hoof and mouth disease, how to grow chickens and make them 
pay, what sort of fertilizer to put on acid soil and what kind 
would reduce alkalinity and a thousand other sorts of educa- 
tion useful to the farmer. 

But now part of its effort is expended to "sell" the De- 
partment's policy. We used to think that the voters were 
capable of judging an administration by its fruits, but that 
is very old-fashioned indeed. Even the Relief Administra- 
tion has press agents attached to all its various branches 
throughout the country, although you would think that if 
there was anything that didn't require advertising it was 
Santa Claus 

It has always seemed to me that it was the business of a 
political party to advertise its program, and, if that party 
is in power, to advertise the results of that program, out of 
its own party funds, and not to use the money of the tax- 
payers, who may belong to the opposite party, to "sell" them- 
selves to the voters. Because, obviously, if an administration 
can draw on the tax funds for promotion purposes, it has 
an enormous advantage over its opponents 

In any country where there is a free press, the use of the 
tax funds for the promotion of an administration is neces- 
sarily limited in its scope. But in the dictatorships, where 
they not only control the biggest advertising budgets ever 
heard of in history but the press and radio as well, the 
propaganda department becomes second in importance only 
to the police. The two most important individuals in Ger- 
many, for instance, are Himmler and Goebbels Herr 
Himmler is in charge of the Gestapo, the famous secret police 
which terrorizes the people into obedience, and Mr Goebbels 
is in charge of talking them into obedience. Under the dicta- 
torships government propaganda is just as important in con- 
trolling the things that are not said, as the things that are 
said. Just now, all of Europe is engaged in a gigantic 
struggle which in its immediate phase takes the form of a war 


of nerves. The business of the propaganda department is not 
only to keep the populace enthusiastic about the government, 
but to keep it from knowing any unpleasant facts, such as 
what the national debt and deficit is, and what the external 
dangers are. Because if the people knew in any general way 
in what a really bad way they are, heaven knows what might 
happen to the government. 

All dictatorships know that their greatest menace is a 
free press and free discussion. You have probably noticed 
that in his last two speeches Hitler has raved against the 
world press and even accused it of trying to start a world 
war The reason for his rage is that no country can be com- 
pletely severed from the world. Very few Germans can 
read English or French, but some can; and some English 
and French publications get into Germany, and so do for- 
eign broadcasts. And what happens is that the people, who 
are sick and tired of government propaganda, listen to any- 
thing that comes from outside with considerably more credu- 
lousness than they do to what comes from their own govern- 
ment On the other hand, nations which have free discus- 
sion are subjected to a much greater nervous strain, perhaps, 
than nations which know nothing, or nearly nothing. The 
democracies have the jitters because they are aware of the 
dangers. The dictatorships argue that what the people don't 
know won't hurt them, and that ignorance is bliss. 

But this, also, is only true up to a point. When the 
people begin to see all about them the evidences of collapse, 
and at the same time to realize that they are being kept in 
complete ignorance of the facts, they begin to have an awful 
feeling of impotent rage and despair. There is nothing more 
demoralizing than sudden, overwhelming disillusionment. 
That is why it is always wiser for governments to tell the 
people the exact truth, even if that truth be painful, than to 
lead them on in a doped condition, until, at last, the truth 
is realized all at once. 

Some of you may remember that we once had a great 
boom in this country in the years 1924 to 1929. There 


were plenty of people then who knew that the boom was 
very artificial; that we were actually in a happy delirium of 
inflation, and some of those people wanted the government 
to warn the country. But most people in the government 
thought that telling the truth would be bad for business and 
would create demoralization. So they kept on spreading 
optimism, and when the crash came it was all the worse be- 
cause people had not been expecting it at all. 

I admit that to tell the truth is not popular. In the world 
as it is at present, the truth is not at all pleasant It happens 
to be our fate to live in one of those titanic periods of history 
which are really revolutionary, when the whole structure of 
society is undergoing profound change; one of those periods 
when a great many things come to a head mistakes and 
crimes and accumulated discontent, whenever the results of 
man's genius his science and invention add a disturbing 

Everyone naturally wants peace and quiet and the pros- 
pect of a nice comfortable life, and anyone who tells him that 
he is not in the least likely to get it in his lifetime, and 
that, on the contrary, he must plan to live with the greatest 
intelligence and self-sacrifice and not expect very much for 
himself but must try to make a decent world for his grand- 
children anyone who tells him that is likely to be called a 
calamity howler or a Cassandra. However, in my experi- 
ence, the people who have the courage to face facts are those 
who achieve the greatest inner peace. 

One can never stop all propaganda, because in one sense 
all ideas are propaganda. The other day I listened to a dis- 
cussion of whether propaganda had any place in art, and 
one man said that freedom from propaganda was the test 
of art. But I think that is nonsense. The greatest poets who 
ever lived wrote propaganda they wrote to further a way 
of life or a philosophy of life in which they believed. St. 
Paul was a propagandist, but that doesn't dismiss the thir- 
teenth chapter of first Corinthians. Shakespeare was the 
greatest of all propagandists for the aristocratic spirit. Walt 


Whitman was a great poet and a great propagandist for 

All propagators of ideas are propagandists, and in this 
sense we are all, constantly, subjected to propaganda. What 
we need most is to be able to distinguish between kinds of 
propaganda. And, above all, we ought to be able to trace the 
sources of propaganda. 

Just now, for instance, we are being subjected to an 
enormous amount of propaganda from foreign countries. 
That propaganda is concentrated, in the first place, upon in- 
fluencing our foreign policy. Some of it is very subtle and 
some of it is very crude ; some of it is quite open, and some 
of it is hidden. But what we ought to bear in mind is that 
our foreign policy is bound to be in harmony with some por- 
tion of this propaganda. Let me give you an illustration: 
One part of our own population want us to make a common 
front with Great Britain and France in resisting aggression. 
In case of war they want us to refuse to sell arms and even 
essential raw materials to aggressors and to aid the nations 
which are defending themselves. Inasmuch as Great Britain 
and France and some of the small countries of Central 
Europe have no intention of starting a war, but are very 
much afraid that they will be warred upon, these nations 
are making propaganda for this policy. But that does not 
mean that all the people who are advocating the policy are 
victims of British propaganda. 

In the same way, the Germans and Italians and others of 
the so-called dynamic nations who intend to expand on this 
earth by fair means or foul, are extremely anxious that the 
United States should be neutral in their sense of the word 
that we should give no aid or comfort of any kind to any 
nation defending itself. So the Germans are making an 
enormous propaganda in this country in favor of isolation. 
But that does not mean that all the people who are isolation- 
ists are the victims of German propaganda. 

Mr. Stimson believes in collective security and in the first 
policy, so some stupid people are saying he is pro-British. 


Professor Beard believes in the second, so some stupid people 
are saying he is pro-German. Both are honest men, making 
up their minds according to the best of their knowledge, 
quite regardless of whether one or another foreign govern- 
ment has the same idea. 

There is, of course, another kind of foreign propaganda 
which is very vicious. It is the foreign propaganda which 
conceals its source altogether. For instance, at this moment 
the German government is flooding this country with anti- 
Semitic literature designed to work up popular feeling against 
the Jews. The reason that they are doing it is to divide and 
confuse public opinion here. They never indicate on all the 
little leaflets that are sent out where they come from And 
hiding themselves under anonymity or with fake names of 
petty organizations that they have captured or set up for 
their own purposes, they are spreading maliciously untrue 
statements. People are being told that this country is being 
flooded with refugees. Actually, this is pure and simple 
malicious propaganda and not in the least in harmony with 
the facts. The facts are that the American immigration 
quotas have not been extended at all, while the conditions 
under which one can get a quota number have been made 
more rigorous. Only 42,685 persons entered the United 
States last year from all the countries of the world, although 
153,774 were entitled to come under the quota laws; and in 
the six years from 1932 to 1938, 4,487 more aliens left this 
country than were admitted under the immigration laws. 

Whenever we get a pamphlet or leaflet designed to influ- 
ence our opinions, we ought to ask: "Who is responsible for 
this information?" If it is anonymous, we ought to throw it 
into the wastebasket right away. If it is not, we ought to 
ask: "What is this organization? Who is in it? Is he 
reputable?" And if one cannot find the answer to that ques- 
tion, we ought to throw it into the wastebasket. And, finally, 
we must always ask two more questions: "What is the pur- 
pose of this propaganda? And: Are the facts in it true?" 


I happen to believe with Lincoln that you can fool some 
of the people all of the time and all of the people some of 
the time, but not all of the people all of the time. 

In the long run, even the dictatorships will learn that 
to their own awful undoing For there is nothing that so 
arouses the resentment of people as the realization that they 
have been lied to and fooled The first business of any 
democracy is to protect the Truth for the protection of the 
Truth is the protection of itself. 



President Roosevelt gave this speech at the Mayflower Hotel, 
Washington, D C , on May 22, 1939, before the Retailers' National 
Forum, held under the auspices of the American Retailers' Federation. 
The address was broadcast throughout the nation and invoked 
wide editorial comment. These White House remarks were generally 
interpreted as not so much a criticism of retailers, as a fling at the 
anti-New Deal Democrats Roosevelt presumably served notice that 
he would continue his spending program as the main issue m 1940 
The members of his party were in effect warned that if they had 
his backing, they must stand on his platform of continued debt, of 
continued huge expenditures for relief, of not lowering taxes, of 
keeping the government in business, of priming the financial pump, 
of leaving things more or less alone until the national income should 
increase. The immediate audience response amounted to an "ovation," 
and the Gallup poll in June showed that 58 per cent of the American 
public still supported Roosevelt. 

I am happy to speak at this first Forum of the American 
Retail Federation. I feel a kinship between your business 
and mine. The backbone of the Customers we are both try- 
ing to satisfy is the same in your case the many small 
customers whose steady demand for the necessities and a few 
luxuries of life make up your volume in my case millions 
of average American families whose standard of living is the 
practical measure of the success of our democracy. 

For you who are in the honorable business of srorekeep- 
ing, the flow of consumer purchasing power determines the 
difference between red and black on your account books; and 
for the nation the difference between unemployment and 

That is why I want to devote this opportunity to a dis- 
cussion of government fiscal policy in relation to consumer 
purchasing power. 

1 By permission of President Roosevelt. Text furnished through the courtesy 
of Secretary to the President, Mr. Stephen Early. 


Some highbrow columnists and some high-geared econ- 
omists, say that you and I think too much about consumers' 
purchasing power and look at our economic problems from 
the wrong end. They say that we should glue all of our 
attention on the heavy industries, and should do everything 
and anything just to get these industries to work and to get 
private investors to put up the money to build new buildings 
and new machines without regard to the average consumer's 
need or his ability to use these buildings or machines. 

By and large, you will find that these experts are the 
same as those who in 1929 told us that conditions were 
sound and that we had found the way to end poverty when 
we were building luxurious office buildings, hotels and apart- 
ment houses which consumers did not need and had not the 
purchasing power to pay for. 

Today in 1939 they tell you that conditions ate not sound 
because we are trying to build the sort of houses and other 
things which our people really need, and because we are 
trying to make sure that our people have the purchasing 
power to pay for these things. 

They were unrealistic and theoretical when they were 
prophesying their new era in 1929 they are just as unreal- 
istic and theoretical and wrong when they are prophesying 
national bankruptcy in 1939. 

To translate this into terms of the retail trade, the shelves 
of heavy industries in 1929 were seriously overstacked. You 
know what happens to storekeepers if they buy twice as much 
as the public can buy from them. 

In the last analysis, therefore, consumer buying power 
is the milk in the cocoanut of all business. 

Whether you are a big department store or do business in 
a small way on the Main Street of a small town, your sales 
are dependent on how much money the average family in the 
community earns. That is a homely way of putting it, but 
it is an eternal truth. 

That is one reason why I have talked about the one-third 
of our population that is ill-clad, ill-housed, ill-fed. That 
third forty million people can buy very little at the stores. 


Therefore, their local stores can order very little at the fac- 
tories. Some of my friends laugh at me when I stress this, 
laugh at efforts to establish minimum wages. But the little 
and the big storekeeper understand and know they will sell 
more goods if their customers have more money. I want, 
and I think I have your help, to build up the purchasing 
power of the average of your customers. 

How shall we produce more customers with more money? 

One school of thought is what I call the school of the 
gamblers. You find some of them in every community as 
well as in Wall Street, and some of them, the political 
variety, even in the halls of the Congress and State Legisla- 

That school is eager to gamble the safety of the nation 
and of our system of private enterprise on nothing more than 
their personal hunch that if government will just keep its 
hands off the economic system customers will just happen. 
I use the word "gamble" because there is no modern exper- 
ience to support their theory. 

In fact, modern experience denies their theory. Between 
1925 and 1933 government abandoned practically all concern 
for business and put into effect a tax system such as "Old 
Dealers" dream about. Customers and the buying power of 
customers were left just to happen. You know how many 
and how much happened. 

These people who are playing the "it may happen" hunch 
today are actually the wildest eyed radicals in our midst, be- 
cause despite proved failures they want to gamble on their 
own hunch once more. 

In the other school of thought we are conservative New 
Dealers. We are the conservatives because we simply cannot 
bring ourselves to take radical chances with other people's 
property and other people's lives. 

Now the owner of a private business may have the legal 
right to take a long chance that may make or break his personal 
fortune. If he alone goes out of business, the economic 
system is not endangered. 


But the people who run the three branches of our gov- 
ernment do not have the moral right to gamble with the 
well-being of one hundred and twenty million Americans 
If millions of citizens starve, it is no answer to the starving 
to say that in the sweet by-and-by business, left to itself, will 
give them a job. Partisans are going around the country 
scaring parents who are not starving by telling them of an 
increased debt which their grandchildren will have to pay. 
Certainly that is not as alarming as telling parents who are 
already starving that an untrammeled business setup will 
provide their grandchildren with food in 1989. Yet that 
is what the radical gamblers of business and politics might 
have to say if they put their theories into practice next year. 

Not one of you who are good Americans and practical 
Americans believes that we could repeat the catastrophe of 
those years immediately preceding and following 1929 and 
emerge from it with our economic and social system un- 
changed. No business man, big or little, can fairly or 
patriotically ask his government to take a course of action 
that runs that risk. 

That is why our school of thought the conservative 
school holds the view that an intelligent nation should rest 
its faith in arithmetic rather than in a hunch. 

Today, in order to provide customers for business, your 
government uses government capital to provide jobs, to 
prevent farm prices from collapsing and to build up pur- 
chasing power when pnvate capital fails to do it. For 
example, out of every dollar spent by the Federal Government 
to provide jobs, more than fifty cents passes over the counters 
of the retail merchants of America. 

We also use what we call social legislation such as 
legislation to encourage better pay for low-paid labor and 
thereby provide more and better customers for you; such as 
legislation to protect investors so that they may continue to be 
your customers without losing their savings in worthless stocks 
and bonds. 


I wonder if you have any conception of the number of 
business men and bankers and economists whom I talk with 
briefly or at length in any given month of the year. I wonder 
if you have any conception of the variety of suggestions and 
panaceas they offer me. I wonder if you know the very 
large percentage of them who honestly and very naturally 
think of national problems solely in terms of their own busi- 
ness. I wonder if you will be surprised if I tell you that most 
of them leave my office saying to me "Why, Mr. President, 
I did not know about that. You have given me a new 
perspective I never thought of the problem in that way 

I sit in my office with a business man who thinks the 
surest way to produce customers is to balance the federal 
budget at once. I say to him "How?" 

Sometimes he says "How should I know? That is your 
job." Sometimes he says "Cut the budget straight through 
10 per cent or 20 per cent/' 

Then I take from my desk drawer a fat book and it is 
apparent at once that he has never seen or read the budget of 
the Government of the United States. 

He tries to change the subject but I hold him to it. I 
say "This budget is not all of one piece; it is an aggregate 
of hundreds of items. Either we will have to cut every item 
10 per cent or 20 per cent or, if we do not do this, cut some 
items very much more than 10 per cent or 20 per cent/* 

I point out the one and a half billion dollars for the 
Army and Navy. He pounds the desk and says "Don't cut 
that item not in these days/' 

I show him the item of a billion dollars for interest on 
the public debt. He owns some government bonds and rejects 
any cut in his interest. 

I show him the billion dollar item for war and civil service 
pensions. He says "No no cut there." 

I mention the billion dollars for running the permanent 
functions of the regular government departments they cost 
less today than under my predecessor. He readily agrees 


that the postman and the G-man and the forest service cannot 
be curtailed. The only people he would sever from the 
payrolls are the tax collectors. 

That gets us down to a few other big items totaling 
over four billion dollars to take care of four things payments 
to agriculture, federal public works (including P. W. A., 
reclamation and flood control), work relief for the unemployed 
(including C. C. C.) and assistance for our old people. 

My visitor agrees with me that we are going through a 
transitional period seeking the best way to maintain decent 
prices for the farm population of America, trying to make 
them better customers of business men and that even if we 
have not yet found the permanent solution we have got away 
permanently from 5 cent cotton and 10 cent corn and 30 cent 

I come to the public works item. He suggests that that 
can be cut 50 per cent I happen to know that his community 
is working tooth and nail to get a grant for a much needed 
new high school or that his County suffered severe property 
losses from recent floods. I suggest that we will start economy 
right there and not give the grants, defer building the levee 
or the flood control dam for twenty or thirty years. 

In every case I find what I suspected. His local Chamber 
of Commerce, his local newspapers are yelling their heads off 
to have those projects built with federal assistance. And I 
say to him "Consistency, thy name is geography. You 
believe with the United States Chamber of Commerce that 
federal spending on public works should cease except in 
your own home town." 

The item of funds for work relief: there my visitor- 
customer makes a last stand. He wants that cut, and cut hard. 

We agree that there are between three and four million 
American workers, who, with their families, need work or 
money to keep alive. I drive him to the inevitable admission 
that the only alternative is to put them on a dole. 

That is where I make a stand. 

I tell my visitor that never so long as I am President of 
the United States will I condemn millions of men and women 


to the dry-rot of idleness on a dole; never condemn the busi- 
ness enterprise of the United States to the loss of millions of 
dollars worth of customer purchasing power; never take the 
terrific risk of what would happen to the social system of 
American democracy if we foisted on it an occasional basket 
of groceries instead of the chance to work. 

I well know the difficulties and the costs of a work policy. 

I do not have to be told that 5 per cent of the projects are 
of questionable value I know it. Or that 5 per cent of the 
people on relief projects ought not to be on the rolls I know 
that too. But when you think of nearly three million men 
and women scattered over all the forty-eight States and all of 
the thirty-one hundred counties in America, I am proud of 
the fact that 95 per cent of the projects are good, and that 95 
per cent of the people are properly on the rolls. And I know 
that the American people cannot be fooled into believing that 
the few exceptions actually constitute the general practice. 

My friend across the desk murmurs something about old 
age pensions. He is a bit half-hearted about this and he 
finally admits not only the need for dignified support of old 
age, given and accepted as a new American right, but he 
realizes that over a period of years this support will have to 
be extended rather than reduced. You and I and all Ameri- 
cans agree that we must work out this problem for our old 

And so my visitor leaves convinced, in nine cases out of 
ten, that balancing the budget today, or even next year, is 
a pretty difficult if not an impossible job. 

A few words about federal taxes: 

They fall into three principal categories consumer taxes, 
like the taxes on cigarettes and gasoline and liquor; personal 
taxes, like the personal income taxes and the inheritance taxes ; 
and, finally, taxes on corporations. Together they yield nearly 
six billion dollars. 

For good sound business reasons two things seem dear 
to me. 


First, especially in view of the unbalanced budget, we 
ought not to raise less money from taxation than we are doing 

Second, it would be bad for business to shift any further 
burden to consumer taxes. The proportion of consumer taxes 
to the total is plenty high enough as it is. Remember, as 
business men and as retailers, that any further taxes on con- 
sumers, like a sales tax, means that the consumers can buy 
fewer goods at your store. 

Therefore, I want to leave the proportion between these 
three groups of taxes just where it is now. 

That means that if we reduce so-called deterrent taxes 
on business corporations, we must find substitute taxes to lay 
on business corporations. That language is as plain as an 
old shoe. Let me give you an example of what I call making 
a mountain out of a mole hill. There is a hullabaloo for the 
repeal of the undistributed earnings tax. You would think 
that this was the principal deterrent to business today. Yet 
it is a simple fact that out of one billion one hundred million 
dollars paid to the Federal Government by corporations, less 
than twenty million dollars comes to the government from 
the undistributed earnings tax less than 2 per cent of the 

Let me proceed. I am wholly willing to have this twenty 
million dollar tax, less than 2 per cent of the total, wholly re- 
pealed on two simple conditions, which are based on principle. 

The first is that this twenty million dollars shall be raised 
by some other form of tax against corporations and not against 
other groups of taxpayers and that it shall be raised in such 
a way that it will be paid by the twenty-eight thousand bigger 
corporations, earning more than $25,000 a year, and not by 
the one hundred and seventy-five thousand little corporations 
earning less than that sum. 

The second condition is that in the repeal of this tax we 
shall not return to the old tax evasion loophole by which a 
small group of very rich people were able to leave their profits 
in closely held corporations, thus avoiding the full rates of 


the higher brackets on their personal incomes. Patriotic people 
will not want to go back to that pernicious habit. 

I have talked with you at some length about the radicals 
who have the hunch that we ought to go back to the condi- 
tions of 1929; about performing a major operation by 
amputating present functions of government; and about the 
efforts of some who would reduce corporation taxes and add 
to consumer taxes. 

But I would not have you believe that the conservative 
attitude of this Administration plans as any permanent part 
ot our American system an indefinite continuation of excess of 
out-go over cash receipts. 

This week is dedicated by the opponents of the Adminis- 
tration to merchandising horror about the national debt. We 
are having a National Debt Week like a National Clean-Up 
and Paint-Up Week. 

Let us talk about the debt in business men's terms. 

In the first place, a nation's debt, like the deposit liability 
of a bank, must be considered in relation to its assets. 

A large part of the government debt is offset by debts 
owed to the government loans of many kinds made on a 
business basis by the R. F. C. and the Farm Credit Administra- 
tion, for instance, and now being repaid on schedule. These 
assets are just as sound as the loans made by the bankers of 
the country. 

Another portion of the debt is invested in federally-owned 
enterprises, Hke Boulder Dam, which will pay out, principal 
and interest, over a period of years. 

A third part of the debt has been invested in works like 
flood control dams and levees, to save us from heavy future 
losses. They will pay for themselves in a very few years by 
eliminating annual property damage which each year has run 
into hundreds of millions pay by the saving of taxable 
values which otherwise would have floated off down stream. 

The next thing to remember about the debt is that govern- 
ment, like business men, is investing in order to create a higher 
volume of business income and, therefore, a bigger net yield 


for government. National income will be greater tomorrow 
than it is today because government has had the courage to 
borrow idle capital and put idle labor to work. 

The year before I took office, our national income was 
thirty-nine billions. In 1937 it got up to sixty-nine billions. 
In 1938 it went back to sixty-two billions. Today it is run- 
ning at the rate of sixty-five billions At eighty billions, the 
income from present taxes will be sufficient to meet expendi- 
tures on the present scale and actually to reduce our relief 

Today with no danger of surplus of goods over-hanging 
the market just because we have tried to keep consumer 
purchasing power up to production the nation is m an ex- 
cellent position to move forward into a period of greater 
production and greater employment. 

And, when this week you see all the crocodile tears about 
the burden on our grandchildren to pay the government debt, 
remember this: 

Our national debt after all is an internal debt owed not 
only by the nation but to the nation. If our children have to 
pay interest on it they will pay that interest to themselves. A 
reasonable internal debt will not impoverish our children. 

But if we do not allow a democratic government to do 
the things which need to be done and hand down to our 
children a deteriorated nation, their legacy will be not a 
legacy of abundance or even a legacy of poverty amidst plenty, 
but a legacy of poverty amidst poverty. 

Don't you agree that it is better to work unitedly to 
balance national income and national out-go at a lever where 
government can do the things that have to be done to preserve 
our people and our resources than to play the speculative 
hunch and withdraw government from lending and invest- 
ment, from conserving property and from providing work 
for our capital and our people, in the hope that in some 
mysterious way a miracle will occur a miracle which our only 
experience, under modern conditions has proved impossible? 


I keep saying, "Do not lose sight of the forest because 
of the trees." Let us always distinguish principles and ob- 
jectives from details and mechanics. You cannot expect this 
Administration to alter the principles and objectives for which 
we have struggled the last six years. 

But if you approve of the purposes that lie behind our 
policies, but believe our operating methods can be improved, 
then your help and your counsel are welcome doubly welcome 
in this Administration. That relates to the details of taxation, 
details of relief, the details of every administrative branch 
of the government. 

If I have spoken to you seriously tonight, it is because 
I believe that you, too, are thinking of the well-being of 
every man, woman and child in our country that you go 
along with me in every effort that I can make for the preserva- 
tion of world peace and for the preservation of domestic 
peace not merely an armed peace which foregoes war for 
the moment, but a peace that comes from a knowledge, both 
abroad and at home, that there will be no further acts of 
aggression on the part of nations, on the part of groups or 
on the part of individuals. You think, rightly, of profits in 
your own business so does every other American so do I. 
But we are not ruled by the thought of profits alone. More 
and more we seek the making of profits by processes that 
will not destroy our fellow men who are our neighbors. 

That is one of the functions of your government. It 
seeks your cooperation in the extension of that ideal. It is 
open to your advice and your help because it believes that its 
fundamental ideals and yours are the same. 

That is why I came to you not in the spirit of criticism, 
not with a big stick, but with a simple plea for your assistance 
as American citizens in working out our common problems 
with good-will and with the maintenance of the ideals of 



This debate was given in the United States Senate on January 
26, 1939, as part of the general discussion concerning Roosevelt's 
asking in a special message on January 4th, from Congress $875,- 
000,000 as a supplementary appropriation for relief until the next 
fiscal year. The House had voted on January 13th to reduce the 
grant to $725,000,000 Senator McKellar moved an amendment to 
restore the full amount. In spite of the eloquence of Lee and others 
in support of the Administration's request, a coalition of Republicans 
and anti-New Deal Democrats, on January 27th, by a vote of 47 to 
46, rejected the motion 

Mr. President, in Oklahoma we have 33,726 persons who 
have been certified to the W. P. A. rolls as eligible who can- 
not secure employment. I assume that those 33,726 persons 
in Oklahoma have no buying power, because that is the pre- 
requisite to being certified for the rolls. Far be it from me 
to say "I told you so'*; but a year ago, I believe, I made the 
statement here that if Congress would grant us a formula that 
would guarantee a price of 20 cents a pound on the cotton 
which we consume in this country we could fold up most of 
the relief agencies in the deep South and in the cotton-raising 
area. Of course, that was not done. At the same time I made 
the statement that if it were not done we would come back 
here and ask for more appropriations this year to continue 
these people on relief I also said, I believe, that I should be 
one of those asking for this appropriation. Therefore I rise 
now to speak in support of the amendment which is to be 
proposed by the Senator from Tennessee {MR. MCKELLAR]. 

MR. HATCH. Mr President, I do not want to interrupt 
the Senator; probably he has the figures which I am about 

1 Congressional Record. 84 no 17 1144-7, January 26, 1939 Reprinted 
through the courtesy of Senator Lee. 


to ask for; but the statement that there are in Oklahoma 
33,000 persons certified as eligible and not having work 
arouses my curiosity as to the number who are actually em- 
ployed m Oklahoma. Has the Senator those figures? 

MR. LEE. Those actually employed are 65,093. The num- 
ber of persons certified for relief and available for assign- 
ment is 98,819. The difference is 33,726 33,000 persons who 
have no buying power; 33,000 persons who cannot be custo- 
mers of any store, of any shop, of any business or profes- 
sion; 33,000 persons who no longer constitute the mass to 
whom the manufacturer must sell his goods. 

There are two major causes of unemployment. One, we 
may say, is the result of science. Labor-saving inventions 
have displaced many workers. The Rust Brothers of Ten- 
nessee have invented a cotton-picker which, if and when 
perfected and placed on the market, will throw out of em- 
ployment in round numbers 3,000,000 persons who depend 
upon cotton-picking for enough money to grubstake them 
through the year Should we pass a law to prevent that 
labor-saving device from coming on the market ? Should we 
by legislation attempt to prevent a mechanical cotton-picker 
from being placed on the market? Not if you ever had your 
back ache from picking cotton all day labor which is the 
hardest drudgery that can be found. You would not vote 
against the introduction of a machine to prevent that; but 
that means 3,000,000 persons who will be displaced by one 

I am told that in the steel mills, even since this depression 
began, labor-saving machinery has been applied until there 
are blocks and blocks of mills which you may go through with- 
out seeing a man. The milk are mechanically operated. 
There has been a displacement of labor. 

What is the answer? Should we attempt, as China might 
do, to roll back progress and say, '"We cannot and shall not 
progress?" Or shall we welcome every labor-saving mechani- 
cal robot that lifts the load from the back of man? I am 
sure my coEeagues agree with me that if we are to progress 


in the world we should welcome and subsidize labor-saving 
inventions; but with the coming of these inventions we are 
presented with the problem of furnishing employment to 
those who have been displaced by the inventions. 

We are making an effort in that direction. We offered 
the wage-hour law last year as a contributing means of 
solving this difficult problem by shortening the hours people 
may work; and, incidentally, the reports we get on that law 
are very good. That was an attempt to cut down the number 
of hours in order to distribute the labor among as many 
persons as possible. 

We are in a scientific age. My grandfather used to tell 
me how he cut wheat with an old-time scythe and cradle. 
You can imagine how much wheat one man could cut in 
that fashion. Compare that with wheat harvesting in the 
West today, where a man hooks a mogul on a combine and 
pulls into a thousand-acre ocean of grain and cuts and 
threshes that grain in one operation and pours it in a grain 
bin to be hauled away. The next thing we know some 
fellow will invent a portable flour mill and hook it on behind 
that machine and grind up the wheat into flour, and then 
perhaps a portable bakery on behind that and cook the 
flour up into hot bread all in the same operation, and put 
on a plow behind and let it prepare the seedbed for the 
next year, and sow the next year's crop, all in the same 
operation. [Laughter.} 

But seriously, one man on a farm today, with power ma- 
chinery, can do the work of five men or twelve men, depend- 
ing on how far back in history we go to make the comparison. 

Electricity? By our laws we are propelling the progressive 
movement of science. We set up a T. V. A to send electric 
currents vibrating out over steel-towered lines carrying elec- 
tricity to light dark homes and to lift heavy loads. Every- 
thing today is being done by electricity. Why, they even 
have an electric polling machine in New York, where a candi- 
date is elected and his opponent is electrocuted at the same 
time. [Laughter.] 


A young woman called up her husband and said, "George, 
you had better come home " He said, "What is the matter, 
honey ?" She said, "I don't know; I must have got the wires 
crossed, or the plugs mixed, or something. Our radio is all 
frosted over, and our refrigerator is giving a fireside talk." 
[Laughter } 

So we are living in a scientific age. It is useless to blink 
at it. It is useless to go to sleep with the belief that the un- 
employment problem will solve itself. It will not. There is 
only one power that can solve it, and that is the Government 
itself; and that is why we have government. 

We make another contribution to the solution of that prob- 
lem which I do not wish to discuss now, in the form of old-age 
pensions and the Youth Administration, hoping to cut off 
unemployment at both ends, giving the old people something 
to live on and at the same time furnishing enough income to 
young people that they may spend their time in school, and 
cutting down the number of unemployed in that manner 

There is another major cause of unemployment and that 
is the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, with 
the accompanying increase of poverty on the part of the 
many. The two things operate in inverse ratio. The richer 
the rich become, and the faster they become rich, the poorer 
the poor become, and the faster and more numerous they 
become poor. That is a natural tendency. It was here before 
we were. 

In the Army we were paid on pay day. I remember that 
when we were paid off all of us privates had the same amount 
of money; but by midnight that night some of us were flat 
"busted," and some of the rest of the privates had their 
pockets full of money 

Tonight we could divide up equally all the money in the 
United States, and tomorrow night some persons would be 
rich and some of the rest of us would be broke. The second 
night the rich would be richer, and the poor would be poorer 
and more aumerous.. The third night the rich would be 


richer and fewer, and the poor would be poorer and more 
numerous; and that would continue on and on. 

Wealth constantly and continuously gravitates toward the 
hands of a few, as surely as the laws of gravity pull falling 
bodies toward the center of the earth. Unless some power 
is set up to offset that tendency, the inevitable result is crash 
and ruin. 

It has happened with every nation which has followed the 
policy of laissez faire let the government keep its hands 
off, and let dog eat dog, and let the devil take the hindmost. 
It has always followed that there has been upheaval and 
revolution, and out of the wreckage a few human souls 
have crawled bade and started all over again. If we pursue 
the same policy, sooner or later the concentration of wealth 
in the hands of the few will bring that about. 

Wealth? We have more wealth in the United States than 
has any other nation on the face of the globe. Why, we have 
so much gold that we dig it up in Colorado and bury it in 
Kentucky; and yet we split hairs over furnishing buying power 
to a few poor souls who cannot buy the necessaries of life. 

Wealth ? We have it in this country, but it is spotted , and 
being spotted is a sign of disease. The circulation of money 
is as necessary for the well-being of the body politic as is the 
circulation of blood for the well-being of the physical body. 
When it congests in one spot, there is disease; and unless the 
congestion is broken up and circulation established, death will 

Money? We have it in this country, but it is spotted. We 
have, in round numbers, over $50,000,000,000 of untaxed 
bonds that do not bear their share of the cost of government. 
When we realize that those $50,000,000,000 of bonds are 
owned by those in the highest wealth brackets, we realize that 
the ones who buy the bonds are those most able to buy and 
store them away and therefore be exempt from paying taxes 
on them. We have enough wealth in America, we have 
enough natural resources in America, we have enough man- 
power in America to develop those resources, Have we 


enough courage in this body to bring those things together 
in the proper relation to move forward, or shall we hesitate and 
talk about stopping the flow of money ? 

The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few brings 
stagnation. The Government must set up a power that is 
constant and forceful, bringing about a redistribution of 
wealth continually and constantly, or the wealth will all find 
itself in one place. That is the position in which we are 
today. It has been said the wealth of the nation is concen- 
trated until one per cent of the families have 66 per cent of all 
the national wealth, while thousands of others, yes, millions, 
have so little that it is not enough to live on. 

Today we are debating whether or not we will increase 
the amount appropriated for the W. P. A. pay rolls. 

I realize that this administration has been called a Santa 
Claus. President Roosevelt has been called Santa Claus 
so much that he has discontinued the dairy business on his 
farm in Dutchess County, N. Y., and has gone into raising 
Christmas trees. I suppose he wants to raise enough so 
that he can hang up presents for everyone. 

We are criticized on account of the W. P. A. Goodness 
knows I cannot defend every act of the W. P. A. everywhere, 
and I say frankly that I hope the time will come when we 
can taper off the W. P. A. into a permanent public-works 
program, where the employment will be through private con- 
tract, where people will be employed as a private contractor 
employs them, and return to the local communities the semi- 
charitable and charitable cases so that the communities can 
investigate and take care of them. But that stage has not 
yet been reached. Today we are still confronted by the 
necessity of deciding whether to take care of these people 
or not take care of them. We have not worked out a public- 
works program I should like to see us embark on a program 
that would favor self-liquidating and semi-self-liquidating 
projects, such as the construction of toll bridges, perhaps 
toll canals, and highways, power projects, and any other 
that had a self -liquidating possibility or a semi-self -liquidat- 


ing possibility as a permanent proposition. But we have 
not yet reached that point. We still must take care of those 
who are before us today. 

This criticism comes, "You will bankrupt this nation; you 
will rum us " Let me ask those who make that criticism, 
Does it make for any less money in the United States if we 
put some of it into circulation? When we raise money by 
taxation and spend it by giving jobs, does that result in any 
less wealth in the United States? It certainly does not. It 
increases the wealth in the country, as every economist will 

The amount of money and wealth in the country is deter- 
mined not only by the volume of currency but by the turn- 
over of the dollar. When we set up Government force 
pumps and start forcing money out from Wall Street to 
Main Street we are clearing the arteries and the channels of 
stagnation and putting the money in circulation; and that 
money, as it is turned over and over, means more wealth in 
this country. 

Mr. President, I was interested in the question asked the 
Senator from Florida [MR. PEPPER] by the Senator from 
Maryland [MR. TYDINGS]. The Senator from Maryland asked, 
Is it not the purpose to increase the food and raiment and 
shelter supply of this country? Then he asked, Does the 
construction of a city hall bring that about? I was surprised 
at the able and distinguished Senator from Maryland asking 
a question like that. The question today is not whether 
there is a sufficiency of food and raiment. That is not the 
question. That would have been the question in the days 
of barter, but we are not in those days now. Today we have 
a medium of exchange known as the dollar, and when the 
circulation of that medium of exchange is stopped, we can 
have surpluses which are burdensome, as we do have today. 
Yet, because the circulation of the medium of exchange is 
stopped, they cannot be handled. What good would it do to 
increase the production of wheat and cotton and wool when 
we already have surpluses? 


Certainly the construction of a city hall increases the food 
and raiment supply of the people, because the workers on 
the building convert their time into dollars, and convert the 
dollars into food and raiment. There is a sufficiency in this 
country, and there is more than that. 

I must tell a story here which I have told before, of an 
old fellow who had more whiskers on his face than I ever 
saw hanging on any man's chin. His head was as bald and 
as slick as an egg I looked at him and said, "That is 
our situation today overproduction and poor distribution." 
{Laughter.} I do not believe there would be overproduction 
in this country if it were not for the poor distribution. 

Let us follow up that question of men working on the 
city hall. In the first place, the city hall is built of brick. 
Whence come the brick? From a clay deposit, and the clay 
has to be mined. Who does that mining? Laborers. What 
do those laborers get for their work? They get money. 
What do they do with that? They buy clothes and shoes 
and food. Then what is next? The next is cement. Some- 
one has to mine that, haul it, and sack it. Then there is 
the paint. Someone has to produce the paint. There is the 
lumber. The lumberjacks m the forest get employment in 
producing the lumber, and they convert their labor into 
money, and that money into food and raiment and shelter. 

What does the W. P. A. worker who toils in constructing 
this city hall do? Let us say he gets a dollar. What does he 
do with that dollar? Does he roll it up and smoke it like a 
cigarette? Certainly not. Does he roll it up in a wad and 
swallow it? Certainly not. Does he light a match and burn 
it? Certainly not. It is ridiculous even to ask such ques- 
tions. What does he do with it? Does it mean less money 
in the country when that laborer gets the dollar? Certainly 
not. What does he do with it? He takes it to the grocery 
store as fast as he can and buys bacon and beans and other 
food supplies for his family, and, if any is left, buys cloth- 
ing for his wife and children. It means unclogging the 


channels of trade, so that the dollar can be converted into 
food and raiment and shelter. That is exactly what it means. 

We might be able to get along without the city hall, it is 
true, but that W. P. A. worker and his family cannot get 
along without the money he gets for helping build that city 

We are told that an increase in the appropriation means 
more taxes. From what class do the taxes come? They 
come from those who have the money. We can get out of 
paying any taxes at all by bringing back the soup lines. 
Then we can get into them and stick our hands down into our 
empty pockets and console ourselves by reflecting that, though 
we are starving to death, we do not have to pay any taxes. 
Certainly there are people paying taxes today who did not 
pay them several years ago, and some of them are displeased 
at having to pay them. 

Do taxing and spending mean less wealth in the United 
States ? Certainly not I do not mean that there is not a 
limit beyond which we should not go; but I think we have 
already gone further than the limit in one direction in allow- 
ing so many people to be without buying power. 

Let me illustrate the point in this way: At my home we 
had a sandbox where the children used to play. There was 
a certain amount of sand in that box, and sometimes the 
children when playing would have the sand all heaped up in 
one corner of the box, sometimes they would have it all 
leveled out nice and smooth, but it was the same sand in the 
box. It did not make any less sand when it was all spread 

Which makes for more prosperity in the United States, 
to have a hundred men with a million dollars each or a 
million men with a hundred dollars each'* The answer is 
obvious. Bringing about a redistribution of purchasing 
power, by taxing those most able to pay and giving jobs to 
those least able to buy, makes for prosperity. That is the 
whole program, and that is what we are working on here, 
to bring about prosperity by taking money by income taxes. 


inheritance taxes, gift taxes, corporation taxes, and the 
different forms of taxes which reach all wealth in propor- 
tion to its ability to pay and in proportion to benefits re- 
ceived, and giving jobs to those least able to buy and increas- 
ing their purchasing power. 

It is not confidence the business people need today, it is 
cash customers, and we are trying to see that they get more 
cash customers 

MR. LUNDEEN. Mr President, will the Senator yield? 

MR LEE. I yield. 

MR. LUNDEEN. I take it, then, the able Senator would 
agree that the problem is not one of production, but is a 
problem of distribution. 

MR. LEE. To a great extent it is one of distribution of 
the purchasing power, as well as of the commodities. If 
we distribute the purchasing power, the commodities will 
be distributed, because whenever there is purchaser demand 
on the one side and an ample supply on the other, there 
is a free play and flow, and full posperity throughout the 
nation. What we are seeking is an increase in the purchaser's 
power up to the bare necessities of life alone. That is all we 
are asking, not for ability to buy any luxuries. 

I was speaking of confidence in business. Confidence is 
as much a result as a cause of prosperity, in my opinion 
more. When does the businessman have confidence? After he 
has done a good day's business, after he has sold a good 
supply of goods, his confidence goes up. He says, "I feel 
better. I will buy more goods and fill my shelves." So 
that confidence is as much a result as it is a cause, and in 
my opinion more. 

Confidence will rise in equal ratio with the increase of 
purchasing power of the people throughout the nation. I 
fully agree in fact that is one of the things in which I 
am deeply interested that we should increase the purchasing 
power of the 30,000,000 people on the farms throughout 
the nation, whose purchasing power has dropped to niL 


There are 6,000,000 farm families Counting at least 
five persons to the family, that makes a total of 30,000,000 
farm people. Their purchasing power has dropped to a 
very low point. The average farm family income in one of 
the states is $75 a year What kind of purchasing power 
is that? No wonder the channels clog up when the people 
do not have the money with which to purchase goods. 

No business man ever refused goods to a cash customer 
simply because he was pouting at the Government. When 
we get the cash customers, we will have good times, and 
not until then. We hear many idealistic talks about confi- 
dence on the part of business. That is all very well, up to 
a certain point. But let us not blind our minds or confuse 
our reasoning. 



This debate, the final, in a series of thirteen, was delivered over 
the Columbia Broadcasting System, on May 16, 1939. Taft and 
Smith were both newcomers in Congress, the former in the Senate, 
the latter in the House. Representative Smith, a professor of Gov- 
ernment at Chicago University, and one of the Chicago Roundtable 
Broadcasting group, had been a state senator of Illinois, and had 
campaigned successfully for Congress on a New Deal ticket in 1938. 

Taft, described as "quiet, shy, exclusive, dignified, and colorless 
as a speaker," in the Ohio Republican primaries of 1938 defeated 
seasoned campaigner, A. H. Day, by 62,000 votes, and then defeated 
Senator Bulkley by a hundred thousand. 

The purpose of the Smith-Taft series was described by the CBS 
as "to give a practical demonstration of the effectiveness of the 
democratic method of government and way of life They (Taft and 
Smith) will demonstrate that the democratic method of mutual 
criticism and controversy is, at its best, not destructive, but construc- 
tive." The general theme was "Foundations of Democracy." The 
series ran from February 21st to May 16th 

The American Institute of Public Opinion asked the auditors 
this question, "Which do you think had the better of the argument?" 
The survey showed that of those who indicated a preference, 66 per 
cent -were for Taft, 34 per cent for Smith One in three had no 
opinion It was estimated that 5,000,000 persons heard one or more 
of the broadcasts. 


My fellow-countrymen: This marks the end of these 
friendly debates with my legislative colleague, Mr. Taft, 
junior United States Senator from Ohio. In spite of frank 
talk and hard blows from each of us never personal, how- 
ever, from either of us I am happy to recall at the end 
our joint hope expressed at the beginning that we would 
raise partisanship a notch in the direction of patriotism. 

1 Congressional Record. 84. no 102-8621-4, May 24, 1939. By permission 
of the authors and by courtesy of and through special arrangement with the 
publishers of the debates, Alfred A. Knopf Co. The text of the Smith debate 
was supplied through Representative Smith. 


Underneath our earnest differences we are both Ameri- 
cans, belonging to great parties both of which are American, 
and engaging m a type of sportsmanship that is truly and 
deeply American I wish particularly to express my pleasure 
at having drawn an opponent in these debates who is both 
literate and articulate, who is both honest and courageous. 
All conservatives I willingly believe to be as honest as other 
men, but how few conservatives have, like Mr Taft, the 
out-loud courage of their inner thoughts' It will be a safer 
day, politically speaking, when more conservatives out with 
it as Mr. Taft has here done on both our basic national 
institutions (the Constitution, the Executive, the Congress, 
the judiciary, and the states) and the major national prob- 
lems now engaging attention (unemployment, security, war 
and peace, labor, agriculture, and the debt). I'd like, indeed, 
to register before my fellow-countrymen my appreciation of 
Mr Taft and my admiration for his example. He's one of 
the very few conspicuous and ambitious conservatives who 
do not prefer silence to speech, one of the rarest of the 
rare who show themselves willing to go up or down with 
their own honest convictions boldly expressed before the 

I salute the Columbia Broadcasting System for the 
courtesy of its network, and I thank the many of you who 
have written in and the millions of you who have not 
written in. I thank Mr. Taft again for helping me help 
him demonstrate that one of the foundations of democracy 
is to accept opposition as also a standard form of coopera- 
tion. I salute you, I salute him; but I warn you that he's 
trying to lead America backwards, whereas our concluding 
subject is "Forward America!" 


But what is "forwards," what "backwards," for Amer- 
ica? Let me remind you of some simple truths. We live 
in a highly organized world, and few of us like the way 
organizations cramp our individual style. Why, in many 

T. V. SMITH 121 

cities even citizenship itself is hard to enjoy because of the 
bossism which encrusts it. Some of my friends who belong 
to labor unions have talked to me frankly at times about 
how little voice they have in their own unions. They feel 
squeezed by the very organizations they joined to protect 
their freedom 

What these labor union men tell me, Senator Taft says 
the farmers of Ohio have been telling him The farmers 
have organized to aid themselves and now feel regimented, 
he says, by what you and I know to be the program of 
farm organizations. You remember the Senator in a previ- 
ous debate hazarded the bold statement that his Ohio farmers 
resented so strongly what he called regimentation that they'd 
rather have no program at all than this one they've already 
worked out for themselves. Though many Illinois farmers 
tell me otherwise and though some of Senator Taft's Ohio 
farmers have written me protesting his statement, I dare 
say that in the event the farmers will find organizations as 
galling as do labor union members. 

In this discontent at the loss of individuality, I believe 
that the farmer and the industrial laboring man are but 
typical of modern men in general. Listen for the same 
complaint from the retailers, meeting in Washington next 
week. Moreover, the rest of us see that the labor unions 
have grown so strong that they can, almost upon the order 
of a single man, arrest the flow of coal, or electric current, 
or even of milk for our children. We see that the farmer 
can now limit his acreage or reduce his marketing quota 
and thus hoist the prices we pay for what we eat or wear. 
We see and resent the social danger of such organized 
power. It touches us as consumers. But it touches the 
worker as producer and consumer and narrows his rights 
as a man. 

This epidemic abroad in the world deserves a name. 
Let us call it Organ ization-itis. When it strikes, it limits 
our freedom and hurts our dignity as men and women. 
Echoing in advance one complaint of the retailers, it's 


everywhere not only chain stores but chain unions, chain 
farm federations, chain schools, and even chain churches. 
In our heart of hearts we all know that the spirit of the 
chain gang has broken out of prison and roams at large, 
making the whole world a sort of prison house for free 
spirits. A new feudalism is upon us, in which each of us 
becomes, as the old word was, a masterless man unless we 
join something and let our organization try to master other 
organizations with which we have to bargain for a living 
and then, alas, end (our own organizations end) by master- 
ing us. The universality of this feeling makes appropriate 
Lincoln Steffens's attribution of the secret of it to the devil 
the secret that the way to ruin any and every good cause 
is to tempt men to organize //. 

This feeling is so prevalent, not only in totalitarian lands 
but even in our own democratic country, that my unknown 
verse-maker has hardly exaggerated the homesickness that 
comes over the veneered pioneer in each of us when the 
romantic hour of springtime strikes in us the far from lost 

I want to be off to the edge of the world, 

Away from the realm of law, 
To the land where never a flag's unfurled, 

And the life is rough and raw. 

I want to be off where the roads are new, 

Or there's never a road to see; 
For ever and ever the long years through 

The wilderness calls to me. 

I play my part in the business scheme 

Of barter and trade and sale, 
But deep in my secret soul I dream 

Of the joys of the open trail. 

I think of the pungent campfire swirled 
On the breath of the winds that blow, 

And I want to be off to the edge of the world 
But I haven't the nerve to go! 

T. V. SMITH 123 


I speak feelingly about this, and even quote poetry about 
it, because it hits me hard. It hits me hard as one born in 
a log-cabin where self-help was the only help; it hits me 
hard as a Democrat, who with his party distrusts organiza- 
tion; it hits me hard as an independent politician, who 
un- joined all organizations possible before standing for pub- 
lic office. Yet Mr. Taft has throughout these debates blamed 
my party for too much government, especially for what he 
calls regimentation of the farmer. I admit that we have 
enabled the farmers the better to organize. I have even 
tried to claim Democratic credit for making organized democ- 
racy work in the factories also, through the Wagner Act and 
the National Labor Board. Indeed, I remind you now that 
the major promise of the Democratic program of '32 was to 
try to equalize upward the bargaining and purchasing power 
of both agriculture and labor. But I hear a voice from 
the northwest corner of conscience! Don't I know that 
Thomas Jefferson foresaw that when America got organized 
in cities and collectivized in spirit, America would become 
like Europe and individualism would be dead or dying? 
Yes, I know it; and I frankly admit that I'm sad about it. 

What Mr. Taft ought to be sadder about, however, and 
isn't is this: Under Republican influence America was so 
one-sidedly organized by '32 that the old free competition 
called capitalism had actually become a financial feudalism. 
The Republican folklore of capitalism has entrenched itself 
behind a folklore of fatalism which made voluntary change 
impossible because it held change itself unnecessary. Weren't 
the right men secure ? When the right men are secure, 
they worry little about the rights of men. 

There's little doubt that these conservatives were, and 
are, honest in the aristocratic belief that a moral receivership 
is better than democracy for the American people. They 
hold honestly to the "seepage" theory of welfare. Make wise 
and good men that is, themselves secure at the top and 
whatever welfare is possible for the people will seep through. 


They may be right about their own superiority But 
no Democrat could believe it and still be democratic. 
Nevertheless, their organized strength was too great to be 
directly disbanded. Such drastic action would have required 
revolution in the depths of Republican depression. That was 
our predicament when it came our time to go forward for 
America in '33 Let me illustrate it with a story. 

A countryman was asked by a tourist downstate how 
to get to the capital. 

"Start here," said the countryman, "Go straight ahead 
for two miles, then turn left one mile, then right. . . . No, 
that won't do. ... Let's come back and start over. . . . Be- 
ginning here go straight ahead two miles, as I said. Then 
don't turn left, but right for one mile . . then left. No, 
that's not right either" 

Thoughtfully he paused a puzzled moment and then 
looked up at the tourist to confess. "Say, Mister, if I wuz 
you and wanted to go to the capital, I'd not start here 1 " 

That was, I repeat, exactly our predicament in '33 
Revolutionists might have started some more romantic place 
than the hole where the Republicans left the country. But 
we Democrats had to start where we were. Communists 
would have started elsewhere by drumming up class hatred 
that did not exist in America, not even in the hardest times. 
Nazis would have found a scapegoat to conceal their taking 
over the financial power and then would have used the 
power against farmers, laborers, and the capitalists them- 
selves. But we were Democrats who had to start where we 
were, with vast corporate interests over-organized against the 
American people. , 

The Republicans see this evil of over-organization but 
see it only by halves. They really don't want labor to 
organize, nor the farmers either, though they bear such ills 
as best they may in hope of 1940 and beyond. But they do 
want the present corporate structure to remain and the pre- 
dominant influence of business to continue (two hundred 
corporations, if not the sixty families, controlling America) . 

T. V. SMITH 125 

Their own self-interest organized as conscience prevents 
their clearly seeing that if finance and business are thus 
over-organized, workers must over-organize or suffer eclipse 
of their rights as human beings. And if both these sides 
of the industrial process are over-organized, farmers must 
over-organize. And if both great producers, industrial and 
agrarian, are thus over-organized to protect their interests, 
consumers must eventually over-organize to protect their 
rights. And so Organization-itis spreads from this single 
Republican source of group selfishness and rages throughout 
the body politic. We Democrats, not being revolutionists, 
have had to treat the disease homeopathically, appeal ing to 
make it worse as the only peaceful means of making it better. 
So much for the disease, its cause in corporate centralism, 
and its development arrested by the counter-claims of farm- 
ers and industrial workers. 


What, now, about the future ? And is there realistic 
ground for choosing one party rather than another to hold 
the disease in check and to go forward to a cure? Yes, 
there is ground for this choice, though the situation is 
chronic and confused. Ground for choice there is, however, 
and room for hope as long as the liberal spirit of the 
Democratic party endures, in whatever form. Contrary to 
prevailing pessimism, I'm convinced that it's not "later than 
we think," if we'll only think. 

Neither party, of course, knows what to do about un- 
employment; and neither can balance the budget save by a 
prosperity which both will woo but which neither knows 
how to win. But the Democratic party will keep the nation 
balanced meantime by doing its duty to the unemployed 
gladly rather than glumly with Herbert Hoover. As regards 
social security for the employed, it's the Democratic party 
overwhelmingly; for we not only caused social security, but 
we believe in it. The Republican party does not believe in 


it as an ideal at least Mr. Taft has said that he doesn't 
and so it tolerates social security as political expediency, 
flirting the while with wild and strange innuendoes of two 
hundred dollars a month dispensed according to the political 
rather than the financial calendar. All checks are equally 
good, you know, until you have to cash them. 

As regards a more lasting remedy, moreover, for Organi- 
zation-itis, the Republican party is clearly at a disadvantage. 
It cannot renounce its old allegiance to the corporate one- 
sided organization of life which it has fostered. Nor can 
it rob itself of the fruits of its corporate organizations by 
suffering agriculture and labor to become as strongly organ- 
ized as it has organized industry. So the best we could 
hope through it would be a return to financial feudalism, 
labor and agriculture knuckling under to a dishonorable 
peace. That would involve such a loss of purchasing power 
as again to undercut the financial feudalism as in '29. That's 
the best to hope, however, from the Republican party, a 
chronically recurring spiral of disaster. 

The worst to fear from it is that, agriculture and labor 
fighting back through the organization we've given them, 
the corporate power will again lay hold of the government 
as under Coolidge, roughly pushing labor toward serfdom 
and agriculture toward peasantry. Even if the so-called 
Grand Old Party then escapes the corruption of the old Ohio 
gang and the honest lethargy of Hoover, it will become a 
sort of Republican fascism. I here use the term not abusively 
but descriptively. Fascism arises, you know, from having all 
great interests organized and incorporated. Then the State 
finds it easy, if not indeed necessary, to become the incor- 
poration of the corporations Organizing thus the organiza- 
tions, the State proceeds to work upon the many the will 
of the few incorporators, now turned conspirators. Mus- 
solini, let us remember, more frankly than Republicans, calls 
his form of government the Corporate State. And any 
government that arises from strident competition among 
corporations is likely to become itself the corporate holding 

T. V. SMITH 127 

company of all the other organizations incorporated under 
it. If that's the road ahead, let Republicans lead They'll 
find it more natural. 

If, with the Republicans at their worst, we are to move 
backwards to this corporate fascism, or, at their best, to an 
older feudalism of wealth, let us pray that our retreat be 
not in the winter time and that the speed be slow. 


I, for one, am convinced that the American people do 
not want that ending and so do not want to journey down 
that road. Indeed, we do not want to live in the shadow 
of such pressure groups as already make our politics closely 
akin to war, whether the group pressing be labor, agriculture, 
or business. The only road of safety is to keep these organ- 
ized pressures equal and balanced against each other until 
their fierce competition can be subdued together into a more 
cooperative order. It's certainly not safe to let any one of 
them run away with the show, as Republicans have let the 
commercial interests. I refuse myself to believe that the 
middle way of practical democracy, already operative in small 
countries like Sweden, cannot be attained in this great repub- 
lic, through our traditional spirit of equality and friendliness. 
Pending the return to cooperative individualism, the least 
modification of capitalism which the times permit is to 
equalize between these great organized bodies the competition 
which capitalism pre-supposes between natural individuals 
equal before the law. 

But there's no way to maintain this modification or to 
return toward the cooperative democracy of competing indi- 
viduals save through the machinery of representative govern- 
ment. Public power is the only possible antidote to private 
power. And I may add that public taxes are much better 
than the private taxes of prices controlled from behind the 

Knowing all this, it is the genius of the Democratic 
party to accept, therefore, a paradox that terrifies honest 

Republicans and enrages selfish Republicans. It is the pa 
dox that more government is required to get more freedt 
for the most people. The only power we Democrats fina 
recognize is the power of the whole people, which is gove 
ment Today we have used that power to curb corporatic 
of business. Tomorrow we may have to curb corporate lab 
And who knows that day after tomorrow we may not ne 
it to curb farmers grown too fiercely strong through orga 
zation? This common power of democratic government 
our only reliance against corporate greed, however organi2 
and wherever found. 

Let us be quite frank about it: to deal with econon 
monopolies in the modern world there is required monop< 
of another sort. A monopoly of the legal force of the wh< 
community used to be called democratic government T 
Republicans would now have you think of it as "regimen 
tion" so long as they do not control it. But it remaj 
just what it is, democratic government, and the people's 01 
reliance against corporate encroachment I am not n< 
speaking of "trust-busting," which has swelled many a pol 
cal throat and has as yet "busted" very few "trusts." \ 
Democrats have the patience to find out what needs doi 
before we sally forth to do it. Our present monopoly 
vestigation is trying to find out what monopolies inju 
what help the country. This determined, we shall me 
resolutely in the direction here pointed Nobody else ^ 
move any direction save backwards. 

To break the old bottle-necks of control once they 
located and then to prevent new bottle-necks from formir 
we are streamlining our Democratic government. I have 
these debates thought it useful to give a new and unprovoi 
tive name to a government adequate for the tasks before i 
This philosophy of government I have called the New Fe 
eralism. I call it Federalism because, like Alexander Ham 
ton, the great old Federalist, I believe that where governmc 
is required, it ought to be made efficient through coordinati 
powers long left inefficient by separation. I call it N< 

because, unlike Hamilton, I do not believe "the people 
beast, sir," but the source of all power and the only right 
beneficiaries of their own power efficiently organized 
representative government. 

Such democratic centralism is giving us cheap elect 
power. This ought to enable us to decentralize indust 
That done, we may democratize finance by a generous pol 
of credit extension. Both these done, farming and lat 
could again become, as work should be, a way of life instc 
of, as now, an individual struggle for existence and an 
ganized competition against corporations for power and pla 
Democratic centralism of government thus points to a < 
centralization of every privileged form of collective po^ 
and promises a slow cure for the worst form of that soc 
disease, Organizationitis. 

I say "slow" advisedly; for, as the White Queen remari 
to Alice, "Here, you see, it takes all the running you can do 
keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere, 3 
must run at least twice as fast as that." 

Whether we shall actually move forwards in this Dec 
cratic direction toward individual freedom or backwards w 
Republicans to feudalism or fascism, it is for the peo 
themselves to say. As for me > I am grateful that tonight 
can still enjoy in humility the American way of friendlin 
and humor. Such a happy way of life enables a Smith 
look at a Taft and counsels a Taft to argue with a Smi 
Thus the American way unites in tolerance a mellowed tra 
tion and family pride, on the one side, with a joy in skill a 
a feel for the multitude, on the other. 

Long may it remain so! 

Now, as the Senator and I, contentedly alone, or hapj 
together, stroll from this studio down the grassy Mall, w 
pass from Washington's lofty monument in sight of Lincol 
majestic home, on down by the new shrine rising to Thor 
Jefferson. Beyond Jefferson's place, the river, which j 
keeps a-rolling along this quiet Potomac, lazily coursing 
way to the sea since before Washington was will beco 


tonight for me a silver symbol of national unity across the 
gulf of years, softening the landscape of all present political 
differences. It is fitting that in "Ole Man Ribber's" presence 
we thus celebrate at the end of controversy our common de- 
votion to a beloved fatherland: in our eyes its beauties of 
nature and in our souls the legacies of its great sons. 

Triumphing over the palsy of fear felt elsewhere in the 
world tonight, the glory of such a nation as this we'll feel in 
the high beating of our common pulse of gratitude. And as 
our eyes wander from lights of city streets and sheen of river 
to the evening skies above, we'll commune for you all with 
a vast ''universe not measured by our fears," until as the 
great Justice Holmes further said "after the sunset and 
above the electric lights there shine the stars/' 


Citizens of the United States of America: In this closing 
debate, I wish to thank Representative Smith for his kind 
words regarding myself, and even more for the spirit of tol- 
erance and friendship which has governed our differences of 
opinion. It has been the greatest pleasure to debate with him, 
in spite of his steadfast opinion that I am always in the 
wrong. I admire his eloquence, and his wonderful command 
of the English language. If, with all his ability, he is unable 
to find a logical and consistent defense of the New Deal, 
certainly it is not his fault, but that of the New Deal itself. 

Forward, America But which way is forward? Surely 
we have been going forward during the last 150 years toward 
a goal which the Pilgrims established in 1620, and which 
was carried on by the founders of our nation. That goal has 
increased individual freedom, with more material welfare to 
enjoy it. Surely we went forward in spite of this talk about 
financial feudalism. Men were more free in 1932, before 
the New Deal, than they were in any other country in the 
world. Their material welfare had steadily increased until 
the average workman had a standard of living three times 


as high as it was in 1820. The average New Dealer seems 
to think that because 1933 represented the bottom of a finan- 
cial depression, there was no democracy or prosperity m the 
United States before Franklin D. Roosevelt Surely a major- 
ity of the people decided every four years what kind of a 
Government they wished, and surely the Congresses then, as 
now, voted the way they thought their constituents wanted 
them to vote. 

It is the New Dealers who no longer wish to go forward 
along our well-marked path. They started along that path 
in 1933 for a few years, but they have wandered further and 
further into the forest of government regimentation until, 
in complete darkness they are moving back in the direction 
of the Middle Ages. It is quite true, as Representative Smith 
says, that they "have moved in both directions at once " 
Some of their measures have sincerely tried to make our sys- 
tem work; others threaten to destroy America as we have 
known it. 

Unlike Representative Smith, many of the New Dealers 
have no concern whatever for individual freedom. They 
are collectivists, like Marx and Lenin and Mussolini. They 
believe in planned economy; that the government should 
regulate every detail of industrial and commercial and agri- 
cultural life. They are willing to sacrifice individual freedom 
in order supposedly to improve the condition of the poor 
and increase their material welfare. But in this purpose 
the policy has completely failed. There are more than 
10,000,000 people unemployed today, and the largest relief 
expense this year, ten years after the depression, than any in 
the history of the United States. Farm prices are lower than 
they have been for six years. Businessmen are discouraged 
and indignant. Deposits have piled up in the banks be- 
cause rich and poor alike are afraid to put their time or money 
into private enterprise, because they fear that government 
regulation will prevent success, and government taxation will 
take whatever profit there might be. The New Deal policy 
is the only one which has ever plunged us into a second de- 


pression before we were out of the first. If any policy leads 
backward and not forward, it is the policy of spending bil- 
lions of borrowed money, and piling up a tremendous debt 
for future generations to pay. A policy which inevitably 
leads to bankruptcy and inflation of the currency will not 
only make the poor people poorer, but it is likely to force a 
socialism which will utterly deprive them of individual free- 

Representative Smith tonight states the philosophy which 
dictates this backward policy. He says, "The way to get less 
regimentation of our individual lives is to suffer more gov- 
ernmental regulation." He adds, "We have added political 
regulation to economic regimentation, and have made it 
stick." He admits that a continuation of this policy leads to 
the corporate state of Mussolini and his only suggestion for 
avoiding that goal is that we support the work of the monop- 
oly committee, which is trying to find out whether monopo- 
lies exist. Think of it. lie New Dealers, who know every- 
thing in the world about labor and securities and agriculture 
and every other man's business, excuse themselves from fail- 
ure to prevent monopoly in industry because they have only 
had six years to find out about it. No, the New deal policy 
is leading us rapidly backward today, and it is a faint hope 
that its direction can be turned by any monopoly committee 
of Congress. 

It is the Republican Party today which looks forward, 
and I am quite willing to accept Representative Smith's pro- 
posal that we start from 1932. Instead of throwing away 
all past experience and embarking on uncharted seas, we 
would keep the good things which the American system pro- 
duced, encourage the principles which produced them, and 
correct the abuses which crept into it as they will creep into 
any system. Let us remember that conditions in the twenties 
in many ways were better than they ever have been since. 
Farm prices were more than twice what they are today. Un- 
employment practically did not exist. Men were eager to 
engage in new industries, expand old industries, and build 


up both production and employment. If we had the same 
national per capita income today as we had then, we would 
have ninety instead of sixty-seven millions and if we had this 
35 per cent more income than we actually have today, we 
could put most of the unemployed men back to work. We 
must restore conditions in which thousands of men and 
women every year were willing to invest their time and money 
in building up the United States and the prosperity of the 
people of the United States. 

Representative Smith says that I "wish the many well 
through the assured welfare of the few." Of course, this is 
not true. No one has ever assured the welfare of any busi- 
ness enterprise until the New Dealers tried to do it under 
the N. R. A. It is said that two out of every three new busi- 
nesses fail. It is not the assurance of success; it is the exist- 
ence of conditions which make it likely that a man of ex- 
ceptional ability or ingenuity, who is willing to work hard, 
shall have a chance to obtain exceptional rewards for himself 
or his family, a chance which shall not be destroyed by Gov- 
ernment regulation and interference. This, says Representa- 
tive Smith, is the "seepage theory of welfare." As a matter 
of fact, the men who are put to work in new jobs by new 
enterprises get their living and their purchasing power many 
months and often many years before the men who started 
the enterprises receive their reward, if they do receive it. 

We have tried the alternative theory of producing pros- 
perity based on dishing out Government funds to great 
classes of people, and while such action has been necessary 
it has certainly failed completely to produce general prosper- 
ity, and has not even restored those men who receive it to the 
material welfare they enjoyed in the twenties. 

What were the abuses to be corrected in the system of 
the twenties? There were to many people rich beyond their 
deserts. I thoroughly approve of the New Deal measures 
to prevent fraud and sharp practice through the sale of securi- 
ties, which was one of the principal methods of undeserved 
wealth. There were undoubtedly some monopolies whose 


owners received profits greater than they deserved. I may 
say, however, that the monopolies before 1932 were nothing 
to the monopolies fostered and built up by the New Deal 
under the N. R. A. For a number of years the New Deal 
was dominated by the theory that all business should consist 
of Government-controlled monopolies Undoubtedly the 
Government should keep competition free and open, so that 
men may not make profits which they do not deserve, but I 
feel that the existence of business monopoly has been exag- 
gerated. In practically all of the articles which average people 
buy there exists today, and existed in 1928, the most intense 
competition, notably m foodstuffs and clothing and automo- 

The Republican Party believes in a sincere effort to keep 
competition free and open to the end that prices may be 
lowered and undeserved profits reduced, I might add that 
more anti-trust suits were filed under my father's administra- 
tion than under any Democratic administration since that day. 
If wealth has been gamed fairly, we believe that it can be 
reduced and is being reduced by income and inheritance taxa- 
tion, and that there still prevails largely in America the old 
tradition of the nineteenth century, "From shirt sleeves to 
shirt sleeves in three generations." 

Another abuse of the system of the twenties was that 
the distribution of income was not sufficient for a decent liv- 
ing for the poorer groups. I might point out that this con- 
dition has always existed under every system, and certainly 
exists in Russia under communism today. To increase the 
condition of the poor has been the earnest desire of every 
public-spirited statesman in either party. The question is not 
one of purpose, the question is, What method will improve 
that condition? The Republican Party thoroughly approves 
of old-age pensions, unemployment insurance, relief when 
necessary, and subsidized housing, but all of these together 
have not improved the condition of the poor over what it 
was in the twenties There are more underprivileged today 
than there were in the twenties There are more people 


wholly unemployed, and many more earning a bare subsist- 
ence on relief. If we could restore the economic and busi- 
ness activity of 1928, we could add $23,000,000,000 to the 
national income, most of it to the relief classes. Relief and 
old-age pensions together do not add more than $4,000,000,- 
000 at a maximum. 

Finally, in the twenties it is probable that the laboring 
groups and the farm groups were at a disadvantage in deal- 
ing with individual employers and individual buyers of farm 
products. The Wagner Act, to promote collective bargain- 
ing in the labor field, and the farm cooperative acts, to 
encourage collective bargaining on the part of the farmer, 
are sound measures, if properly administered, to see that 
oppression does not arise in the normal processes of bar- 
gaining and competition. But Representative Smith wholly 
fails to distinguish between measures designed to assist 
cooperative organization, and measures proposing that the 
Government regulate agriculture and labor and industry. 
He confuses self -organization with governmental bureaucratic 
organizations. It is no slight confusion. It is the difference 
between freedom and slavery. 

In the Guffey Coal Act to regulate prices and wages in 
the coal industry; in the Wage Hour Act, except to the 
extent that it is a real minimum- wage law; in the agri- 
cultural acts, which practically fix the prices of agricultural 
products; in the administration of the Wagner Act, which 
goes far beyond the purpose of that act to tell employers 
how they shall run their business; in the power sought to 
make arbitrary changes in the value of the dollar and the 
currency to effect some individual's idea of what prices 
should be, we see being worked out a complete Government- 
controlled economy. In order to allow the farmer to organ- 
ize it is not necessary for the Government to pay out 
$850,000,000 in benefits or loan money on cotton and wheat 
in excess of the value of cotton and wheat. These measures, 
like the N. R. A. and the A. A. A., lead backward. If we 
ever get to the point where the Government fixes the price 


of all basic commodities, we cannot stop short of complete 
regimentation. There is a fundamental distinction between 
measures intended to keep the course of competition and 
investment and individual incentive open, and those measures 
intended to direct the activities of the men who engage in 
that competition and industry. Above all, we have the 
entire Government regulation process stimulated by the 
theory that Government spending can produce prosperity, a 
theory utterly disproved by our actual experience and by 
every sound economic principle. 

The New Dealers today no longer go forward along the 
path which this country pursued for 150 years. They admit 
it. They say that everything is changed; a new era has 
come, requiring new methods. I don't believe it. Americans 
are still American. They have the same basic ideals which 
they have had for hundreds of years They are just as 
eager for individual freedom. They are just as anxious to 
be let alone by Government agents. They are just as anxious 
to run their own local affairs and their own schools. They 
don't like relief, and they know that a reasonable prosperity 
can do away with the necessity for relief. They know that 
thrift and ability and hard work ought to bring rewards 
today, as they did in the horse and buggy days, if it were 
not for Government interference. They know that only the 
Republican Party can avert the disaster which will inevitably 
result from deficit spending, arbitrary price-fixing, excessive 
taxation, and Government regulation of everything and 

We have heard a good deal about the depression of 1933, 
and the terrific condition left by the Republicans. But the 
depression of 1933 existed throughout the entire world, 
while the depression of 1937 was a special American de- 
pression, created by New Deal policies. Even the depression 
of 1933 was not solely a Republican affair. The biography 
of Carter Glass, which has just appeared, makes it very clear 
indeed that the bank crisis of 1933 was largely produced 
by the course of Franklin D. Roosevelt between the day of 


his election and the day of his inauguration. It is now 
perfectly clear that Roosevelt not only blocked the sound 
fiscal policies proposed by Hoover, but that he refused to 
correct the impression, which really had such a sound basis, 
that he was contemplating a devaluation of the dollar. 



This argument was presented on Thursday evening, April 13, 
1939, and was one of the regular Town Hall programs. The 
moderator of the program was George B Denny, Jr Other speakers 
were Senator Burton K. Wheeler, and Mr. John J Pelley, President 
of the Association of American Railroads. Questions from the 
audience followed the three set speeches, each eight minutes in length. 

"America's Town Hall of the Air" is now in its fourth season, 
in cooperation with the National Broadcasting Company, from the 
Town Hall, New York. The broadcasts have been held each Thurs- 
day evening from 9 30 to 10-30 E.ST, from November to May, 
over the NBC Blue Network Millions of listeners tune in each 
week and hundreds of discussion groups throughout the nation 
function under the direction of the Town Hall directors. See the 
Thornpson-Nye debate in Representative American Speeches, 1937-38. 

Moderator'. Our next speaker has spent the past twenty- 
five years of his life as a student of transportation, particu- 
larly railroad transportation. Mr. Joseph B. Eastman was a 
member of the Interstate Commerce Commission for many 
years, was Federal Coordinator of Transportation, and is 
now a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission. I 
take pleasure in presenting Mr Joseph B. Eastman at this 

Mr. Eastman. As you have heard, the railroad industry 
is financially sick. A lot of the companies are bankrupt; 
almost none is paying dividends. They are employing about 
half the men they once did and spending far less money 
for materials, supplies, equipment, and construction. The 
problem is to cure this sickness, if it can be done. 

What caused the sickness? The chief cause was the gen- 
eral business depression. It greatly decreased the freight and 

1 Bulletin of American Town Meeting of the Air 4. no 23: 12- 16 
17, 1939. By permission of Mr. Eastman and by special arrangement with the 
Town tzMt, Inc. 


passengers to be hauled. Ranking next was the tremendous 
increase in competition from other kinds of carriers par- 
ticularly highway motor vehicles, but including steamships 
and barges, pipe lines, and airplanes. In the past twenty 
years or so this country has spent at least as much in develop- 
ing these other forms of transportation as the entire railroad 
investment. This competition has not only deprived the rail- 
roads of much traffic but has forced wholesale reductions in 
their rates and fares. Railroad traffic has also been lessened 
by the spreading of industrial plants throughout the country 
for the very purpose of decreasing the transportation required 
for inbound raw materials and outbound finished products; 
by the substitution of oil, gas, and hydroelectricity for coal; 
and by the decline in our exports and imports. 

These things hurt railroad earnings very sorely. The 
financial consequences were aggravated by the fact that the 
railroads in the past borrowed much of their capital, and 
hence were heavily in debt. As earnings fell, they could 
suspend dividends on stock but not interest on bonds or 
notes. The result was that many went into bankruptcy and 
that many others cut expenditures to the bone and beyond 
healthy limits to keep out. 

Can a sickness so produced be cured? Not in the sense 
that the railroads can be restored to their former position in 
the transportation world Not all the king's horses nor all 
the king's men can undo what science and invention and the 
expenditure of billions of public and private funds have 
brought about But if railroad managements, employees, in- 
vestors, and patrons and the Government will cooperate, con- 
ditions can, I believe, be improved and processes set in mo- 
tion which should produce not quickly but ultimately a 
transformed and healthy railroad industry. 

For the moment the railroad managements have got in 
bed with railroad labor, probably because they know that 
labor now has much more political power than they have. 
Both allege that the railroads suffer from unfair competition, 
the idea being that their competitors have in effect been sub- 


sidized by the construction of highways and waterways at 
public expense. They jointly offer taxation and tolls for 
their competitors as the remedy, and they urge equal and im- 
partial regulation of all types of carriers as a further curb 
on unfair and destructive competition. In principle I agree 
with them, but I think that they exaggerate both the facts and 
the relief which may be expected from this source. 

By all means let us do what ought to be done along 
these lines, making sure of all the facts and that we do not 
treat any of the types of carriers unfairly, for the country 
needs them all. But it would be wholly wrong to conclude 
that the only way to improve railroad conditions is to make 
it harder for their competitors to do business. It is more im- 
portant, in my judgment, for the railroads to do everything 
possible and the possibilities are great to give the public 
the kind of service it wants at prices which it is able and 
willing to pay. 

In the past the railroad managements so glued their eyes 
on higher rates as the way to make more money that they 
failed to see how fast their competitive foes were advancing 
and to make changes in equipment, service, and prices, which 
might have gone far to forestall the competition. The em- 
ployees were equally blind to changing conditions, and spent 
more time in trying artificially to make two jobs grow where 
one was enough than in adjusting their policies to the new 
necessities, with the result that in due time they often lost 
the one job 

Of late the railroads have shown new enterprise and 
have done quite a little to regain lost ground, but there is 
plenty of opportunity left. Many improvements are possible 
in equipment, in methods of operation and character of 
service rendered, in the adjustment of rates and charges to 
modern conditions, and, as Senator Wheeler said, in financial 
and fiscal practices. There are many unnecessary and waste- 
ful railroad operations which are caused by the large number 
of separate and independent companies and which can be 
avoided througji cooperation or consolidations. There are 


many situations where trucks or buses, and perhaps other 
kinds of carriers, can be substituted to advantage by the rail- 
roads for rail operations, because they can do a better job. 

To some of these changes the managements are luke- 
warm, chiefly because of the fear that the benefits will go to 
rival roads. To some labor is openly hostile, because it 
fears loss of employment I can understand and sympathize 
with such fear and yet I believe that those who encourage the 
employees in it are not their true friends. The railroads are 
too hard-pressed to be able to afford the slightest extrava- 
gance. They have lost and are losing ground, and, if they 
are to reverse the trend, they must have all the benefits that 
maximum efficiency and enterprise can produce. 

Investors in railroad securities have suffered severely, but 
they must, and I think do, realize that many of the railroad 
financial structures are top-heavy with debt, and that reor- 
ganizations are inevitable and essential to any future credit. 

The Government can aid, not only in the ways which 
railroad managements and labor have suggested, but by as- 
suming active leadership in planning and promoting the 
changes, both in the railroad industry and in the entire trans- 
portation industry, which are necessary to bring order out of 
chaos and produce conditions of sound transportation health. 
It is a situation which calls for eternal vigilance on the part 
of all concerned, because conditions are changing all the 
time, and the pace of the change is continually accelerating. 
In the end we shall think less, I feel sure, about railroads or 
trucks or any type of carrier, and much more about a smooth- 
ly running transportation system which will utilize all of 
these kinds of transportation in combination and cooperation 
according to their special merits. 



This address was delivered on Saturday evening, February 18, 
1939, at a dinner session of the Third Annual National Farm Institute 
at Des Moines, Iowa, at the Fort Des Homes Hotel. 

This Institute, organized in 1937, was sponsored by the Agri- 
cultural Department of the Des Moines, Iowa, Chamber of Commerce 
Appearing on the two-day program, were Chester Davis, member of 
the Federal Reserve Board, Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor, 
Joseph R Eastman, Interstate Commerce Commissioner, and Governor 
George A Wilson of Iowa. The chairman of this evening session 
was W. W Waymack, vice-president, Des Momes Register and 
Tftbune. On this program was also Governor Wilson of Iowa, 
Charles R Hook, chairman of the board of the National Association 
of Manufacturers, and Henry A. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture 
The general theme of the program was "Agriculture, Industry, and 
Labor." The purpose of the conference was to bring together farmers, 
industrialists, and labor for discussion of their common interests 
The technique was "first the presentation and then free discussion of 
subjects calculated to bring issues out where light and intelligence, 
rather than heat and prejudice may be upon them . No con- 
sensus of opinion is sought, save as free discussion may tend to lead 
to it. ... The Institute is fundamentally a forum, organized for 
the spread of education and the encouragement of understanding. 
It is politically impartial." 

Mr. Waymack, in introducing Mr. Hillman, said, "In the dis- 
cussions of our Program Committee here locally, among the two or 
three names that bobbed up from the beginning, was always that of 
Sidney Hillman We sought advice elsewhere, and again and again 
the suggestion came in any list of two or three names of men of 
that broad vision and statesmanlike quality. It came from labor 
men, employers, and various other individuals. Sidney Hillman's 
name always appeared. Let me quote from a letter from an attorney 
with reference to Sidney Willing a lawyer who represents large 
business interests. Here is what he wrote: *He persuades instead of 
drives, both as to labor and as to employers. Many times he has 
averted strikes by direct personal contact with employers, often using 
mutual friends to get contacts. He recognizes the community of 
interest between employees and employers, each to develop it along 

1 Proceedings of the Third Annual National Farm Institute, Des Moines 
Iowa, 1939, p. 117-24. By permission of the author. 


mutually advantageous lines, vigorously, but as one who believes in 
the use of reason, and finally he sees beyond higher wages and 
shorter hours he wants to build the conditions upon which the 
result is predicated.' 

"I present to you now, Sidney Hillman, a statesman of labor." 

I consider it a rare privilege to be accorded this oppor- 
tunity of participating in the deliberations of the National 
Farm Institute. In addressing itself to the subject which 
it has chosen for discussion this year, the Institute is per- 
forming a service which is basic to any constructive solution 
of the problems of our contemporary life. It has long been 
my deepest conviction that America will move forward along 
the path of progress only when a common agreement on 
fundamental objectives is reached by the three predominant 
groups in our national life: Agriculture, Labor and Industry. 
Such an agreement is possible only after the most full and 
frank exchange of views, in the course of which their com- 
mon interests may be explored and their apparent points of 
conflict subjected to the type of searching analysis which 
alone can resolve them. 

Never has the moment been more auspicious, never has 
the need been more urgent for such a task. 

Today in 1939, after ten years of alternating crisis, de- 
pression and hard won and precarious partial recovery, we 
still face the problem of providing the people of America 
with purchasing power sufficient to buy the products which 
our economic system is geared to produce. Since 1929 we 
have lost the staggering total of 132 billion dollars of 
national income one and a half times the value of all the 
goods and services which we produced in 1929- 

This drastic decline in the national income has effected 
every group in the country. I don't need to tell you how 
it affected the farmers. Farmers, in 1938, had four billion 
dollars less to spend than they did in 1929, a year when 
agriculture had already faced almost a decade of depression, 
and eight billion dollars less than in 1919- 

I want to be frank with you about it; I like to see our 
farmers do well, for I know whenever the normal purchasing 


power of the farmers is reached normal employment will be 
reached in these cities and places that men and women are 
employed in factories, plants, and general production. 

Workers in 1938 received 12 billion dollars less in wages 
and salaries than they did in 1929. The contraction in the 
buying power of these two dominant groups in our national 
life in turn spelled decreased returns for the remaining 
groups who are engaged in selling them goods and services 
business men, large and small, professional people and in- 

Lack of purchasing power has brought with it the para- 
dox of idle men and idle wealth. Farm surpluses pile up; 
industry operates at only two-thirds of capacity; 12 million 
unemployed tramp the streets in search of jobs, and over 20 
million Americans depend upon some form of public relief 
to keep themselves alive. Government expenditures partially 
compensate for the failure of private enterprise, but only 
at the cost of mounting deficits which cannot be indefinitely 

Can we today find the means to put our idle men to 
work at idle machines; increase the national income to a 
point which will permit us to consume the products of our 
soil; give full employment to our productive resources, and 
provide workers in farms and factories with what we once 
so proudly identified as the American standard of living? 
This is the urgent common problem which confronts Amer- 
icans of all groups and interests. 

It is a problem which we must solve not alone to allevi- 
ate human want and suffering, but under pain of destroying 
the very basis of our democratic institutions. In other na- 
tions, faced with an identical problem, competing groups 
proved unable to resolve their conflicts and agree and act 
upon a common program which would assure work and 
bread for all. It was their failure which betrayed the hungry 
and disillusioned people to the ruthless rule of the dictators 
who have drowned their protests in blood and set the wheels 
of industry moving, not to satisfy their wants but to arm 


for a new world war Today the dictatorships arrogantly 
challenge us to solve our problem without abandoning our 
heritage of freedom and democracy. At this critical hour, 
we in America must accept that challenge and demonstrate 
to the world and to history that democracy can and will 
survive because it can and will satisfy the needs and aspira- 
tions of the people. 

No intelligent approach to our problem can be blind to 
the difficulties which it presents. The fundamental changes 
in national and world economy which have become evident 
since 1929 preclude the possibility of any "automatic" eco- 
nomic recovery of the kind which we witnessed after each cy- 
clical depression in the past. Today recovery can be won 
only by tie concerted effort of industry, agriculture and labor. 

In the era of our expanding economy, inaugurated with 
the founding of the first colonies and continuing with only 
momentary interruption until 1929, we could afford the waste 
and inefficiency and even the injustices which resulted from 
the pursuit by each of these three great groups of its own 
self-interest with small regard for the interests of what each 
regarded as a competing group. The great task of peopling 
and building a continent gave full employment to all of our 
natural, industrial and human resources. It created an ever- 
mounting demand for the products of farm and factory and 
produced a continuous rise in the national income from less 
than one hundred million dollars in the late eighteenth cen- 
tury to eighty-three billion dollars in 1929- Although there 
were glaring inequities in the distribution of that income, 
nevertheless, the period of expansion was accompanied by a 
steady growth in per capita income which held out to each 
citizen the promise of almost unlimited improvement in his 
living standards. 

The new national and world situation which was ushered 
in by the debacle of 1929 was not a sudden or fortuitous de- 
velopment. The problems of the post-1929 world are deep- 
ly rooted in the past. The disappearance of the frontier at 
the turn of the century spelled the end of our territorial ex- 


pansion. The decline in the rate of population growth be- 
cause of a decreased birth rate and the dwindling of mass 
immigration from Europe set limits both to the growth of 
our labor supply and to the demand for the products of farm 
and factory. But the consequences of these two basic changes 
in our national economy were obscured for many years be- 
cause the field for the intensive development of the country 
remained almost untapped. The creation of a highly indus- 
trialized nation set us to building great cities, linking them 
with networks of roads and rails and exploiting our re- 
sources of fuel and power. These tasks continued to absorb 
all of our productive energies They had scarcely been com- 
pleted when the World War came. 

The war and its aftermath further delayed the full reali- 
zation of the consequences of the change in our national 
economy. For fifteen years America supplied the world with 
goods, redeeming the foreign loans which had financed her 
own industrial expansion and then becoming the creditor of 
the war-impoverished nations of Europe. Swollen war profits 
were reinvested in new productive enterprises and the ra- 
tionalization of industry skyrocketed production to unprec- 
edented heights. Agricultural production multiplied in re- 
sponse to what appeared an insatiable world demand for the 
product of American farms. 

But despite artificial stimulation in the form of over- 
expanded foreign credits and an increasing volume of install- 
ment sales at home, there were already portents in the early 
and middle twenties that all was not well with the national 
economy. With the cessation of the extraordinary wartime 
demand for our farm products, agricultural income declined, 
never to recover. From 16 billion dollars in 1919, it slumped 
to nine billion in 1921 and even during the "prosperous" 
twenties never rose above 11 billion. The farmers' share in 
the national income declined ever more drastically from 18 
per cent in 1919 and 15 per cent in 1920 to 9 per cent in 

Labor likewise shared but meagerly in the fruits of our 
post-war industrial expansion of the twenties. While from 


1923 to 1929 industrial output increased by 29 per cent, real 
wages advanced by only 4}/2 per cent Thus, our national 
economy failed to distribute to the two great customers of 
industry the purchasing power necessary to buy back the 
product of its expanded plant. 

Foreign trade continued to compensate in part for this 
deficiency in domestic purchasing power, so that the national 
income continued to increase and most industries to prosper 
during the post-war decade. However, neither our industrial 
plant nor our manpower was fully utilized even during the 
days of our most vaunted prosperity Unemployment never 
fell below one and a half million, basic industries, operated 
far below capacity and there were exceptions to the general 
industrial picture which felt the icy hand of depression long 
before the black October days. 

When in 1929 the inevitable end came to the foreign 
lending upon which our industrial activity was based, the 
whole structure began to crumble. The stock market col- 
lapse which followed soon after wrote "finis" to the era of 
our expanding economy. 

Today, we face the fact that the forces which in the past 
stimulated our industrial expansion no longer play a role. 
Our frontier is gone; our population is levelling off; our 
cities have been established, and even were a new industry 
like the automobile to appear today, it is doubtful whether 
it would be capable of infusing the needed blood into our 
circulatory system. Nor can we look abroad for salvation. 
The world frontier, like the national frontier, has disap- 
peared. The failure of purchasing power abroad and the 
erection of artificial barriers which bar world doors to Ameri- 
can trade have contracted the foreign market beyond any 
immediate hope of restoration to a point which can absorb 
our idle plant capacity and agricultural surpluses. 

If we would be realists, we must look for our market at 
home. It is at home that we will find it. Our idle plants, 
our agricultural surpluses, our army of unemployed are not 
symptoms of a satiated demand for the products of our farms 

*-nA f<ir+nri*c \S7i Viaxw* a xracf on A 


pable of absorbing all that our agricultural and industrial 
ants can produce. You are familiar, I am sure, with the 
'epartment of Agriculture estimates that to provide even an 
lequate diet for our population would require a 40 per cent 
icrease in farm production. This would mean sowing 32 
^r cent more acres of corn, increasing our cow herds by 68 
sr cent and the number of our hogs by 69 per cent and 
taking similar increases in the production of other farm 

Dietary deficiencies are equalled by the need for clothes 
id housing. Even in 1929, we were manufacturing only 
vo-thirds of a suit for every adult male member of our 
opulation And it has been estimated that if the wage 
arning and farm families of the country had the means to 
urchase the amount of cotton goods necessary to insure 
leir health and an adequate social adjustment, we would 
icrease the domestic consumption of raw cotton by 25 per 
snt above the 1929 level. To rehouse the third of the nation 
rho dwell in firetrap city tenements and rural slums would 
squire the construction of some four million housing units 
nd an investment of sixteen billion dollars. 

To make this unsatisfied demand for food, clothing and 
helter effective is, for our generation, a task as challenging 
s the conquest of the western wilderness was for our for- 
ears. The reward for meeting that challenge will be richly 
aid in terms of banishing immediate human misery, stabiliz- 
ig our national economy and establishing our economic and 
olitical democracy on an indestructible foundation. 

This challenge can only be met if we find the way to 
ncrease our national income and distribute it among those 
proups who are today without the means to satisfy their 
lemand for the rudiments of a decent living. American in- 
lustry and agriculture cannot find health in a market which 
s limited to the 2.7 per cent of American families who have 
cicomes over $5,000 a year, or the 13 per cent who have in- 
omes over $2,500, or even to the one-half whose incomes are 
bove $1,250. If we would solve the paradox of starvation 


in the midst of plenty, we must find the way to increase the 
purchasing power of that half of our population, in cities 
and on farms, who are receiving incomes of less than 51,250 
a year. Dr. Lubin, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, has recently given us an indication of what we 
might expect from the success of such an effort. If the in- 
comes of families earning less than $1,250 a year were in- 
creased by only $2 25 a day, their increased annual purchases 
would be something like this. 800 million dollars more for 
food; 416 million dollars more for clothing; 613 million 
dollars more for rent; 213 million dollars more for fuel; 385 
million dollars for transportation; 234 million dollars more 
for recreation, and 208 million dollars more for medical care. 
These estimates furnish a convincing demonstration of the 
stimulus to our whole economic system which can come from 
making the potential demand of the low income groups eco- 
nomically articulate. 

I think that there will be little disagreement on the ne- 
cessity of increasing the purchasing power of the low income 
groups as a necessary condition for the restoration of a 
healthy economy. Industry, agriculture and labor all recog- 
nize in principle that this result can be accomplished only by 
according to each group its equitable share in the national 
income by restoring and maintaining a proper balance be- 
tween farm prices, wages and profits. 

Yet, in day to day living, this agreement in principle 
often yields to mutual distrust, jealousy and suspicion. Qty 
workers sometimes protest increased food prices that eat into 
their pay envelopes, failing to recognize that if this increase 
is passed back to the farmer, it will pay him returns in in- 
creased employment and better wages. Short-sighted farmers 
view with distrust the organization of workers to secure wage 
increases, and have sometimes even lent themselves to efforts 
to block the achievement of this objective. They see in wage 
increases only higher prices for the goods that they buy for- 
getting that between 27 and 43 cents out of every dollar won 
by the worker will be spent on food which the farmers pro- 


duce. Industry, in search of larger profits, often attempts 
to drive down farm prices and hold wages at low levels, 
ignoring the fact that it cannot prosper by starving its cus- 

Yet no member of any of these groups who pauses to 
note the parallel lines which chart farm income, factory pay- 
roils and profits can fad to conclude that the fate of all is 
intertwined with the fate of each Truly, all three must 
hang together or all three will hang separately. The grow- 
ing recognition of that fact is one of the most hopeful signs 
in the present situation. 

My own conviction that the problems of our national 
economy can find a constructive solution through cooperative 
action by the three great groups in our national life, is not 
based upon any Utopian fantasy. It is born of thirty years 
of practical experience with the processes of collective bar- 
gaining. The clothing industry with which my life has been 
associated presents many problems of a type not unfamiliar 
to farmers. It consists a large number of small, mobile and 
highly competitive units. It is plagued with wide variations 
of consumer demand, with seasonal peaks and valleys and 
extreme sensitivity to fashion change. 

Collective bargaining in the clothing industry stands as 
a record where both employer and employee have managed 
to cooperate together. We are closer to you farmers than 
any other. Our wages and prices go down so low that there 
is no problem of maintaining a monopoly, and let me say 
again without finding fault with some of our economists, it 
is true that you can find monopolistic industries that have 
maintained their price levels all through the depression, that 
have even raised prices, as Dr. Henderson has pointed out, 
in the last year or so, but the major part of industry is not 
in a position to control it not that we wouldn't like to we 
just can't do it. The same thing with you gentlemen. We 
are a competitive industry, and of course when prices go 
down we try to produce more and then, of course, we go 
into bankruptcy. 


Your farms no one wants to take them away from you 
these days. There are no people to take over foreclosed 
mortgages, our plants are just closed up. In 1910 when the 
first efforts were made to organize the industry, it was notori- 
ous as one of the most sweated in the country. Hours were 
as long as seventy a week and wages were near the bottom 
of the industrial scale, and they were not buying much of the 
farmer's products. From the point of view of management, 
the industry was in a chaotic condition. Cut-throat competi- 
tion, waste and inefficiency were rampant, all made possible 
because there were no limits to which the workers might be 
driven and exploited. 

Labor and management appeared to have irreconcilably 
conflicting interests which led to periodic outbursts in the 
form of bitterly contested strikes and lockouts. 

The first effort to bring order out of this chaos was taken 
in 1911 with the execution of a collective bargaining agree- 
ment between the union and Hart, Schaffner and Marx 
which created the machinery for democratic government 
through continuous arbitration. That agreement has been 
continued, substantially unchanged, for thirty years during 
which there has been no interruption by strike or lockout of 
the harmonious relations between the company and its work- 
ers The principle of this first agreement has now been ex- 
tended to embrace ninety-five per cent of the entire clothing 
industry. If there is a fight, then it becomes national news, 
but if the whole industry is working without interruption of 
work, of course it is no news, gets no public attention 

Gains to the workers as a result of this process are reg- 
istered in terms of shorter hours, higher wages, better work- 
ing conditions, and increased job security. Hours have been 
reduced from seventy to thirty-six and I know how it will 
affect some of you people in this room, and wages increased 
almost fourfold until today men's clothing is numbered 
among the better paying industries of the country. These 
gains were not made at the expense of management. On the 
contrary, the standardization of wage rates, hours and quality 


of workmanship and the joint efforts of management and 
labor to eliminate waste and promote efficiency in the proc- 
esses of production have brought stability to the industry. 
I am confident that if today, after something over twenty 
years of cooperative effort, employers in the clothing industry 
were given an opportunity to return to the open shop condi- 
tions of the past, they would unhesitatingly reject it. 

The success of this experiment in industrial democracy 
resulted from the opportunity which it gave to each party to 
understand and appreciate the needs and problems of the 
other, and their final recognition of the fact that the con- 
tinued prosperity of each can be won only by assuring the 
well-being of both. The industry has learned that a fair share 
of its profits must be distributed to its workers if it is to be 
assured maximum efficiency of production and a market for 
its products. 

Labor, on its part, has learned that its rewards depend 
upon the prosperity of the industry. It has recognized that 
irresponsible or extravagant demands which are beyond the 
capacity of industry to meet will only spell disaster to both 
partners in the enterprise. Accordingly, it has voluntarily 
accepted temporary wage reductions when an immediate 
emergency required. Further, it has rejected the short-sighted 
policy of attempting to stem technological advances and the 
installation of improved methods of work. Asking only that 
technological changes be installed in a manner which will 
work a minimum of hardship during the process of adjust- 
ment and that a reasonable share of any increased productiv- 
ity be passed on to the workers, it has given its unstinted co- 
operation in increasing the efficiency of production. 

As a result, the benefits which management and labor 
have realized from collective action have not been won at the 
expense of the consumer. Gentlemen, in 36 hours' work a 
week we turned out more than double per person per day 
than we have in a quarter of a century ago with from 54 to 
60 hours a week, and, of course, it has meant reduction of 
labor costs. 


Despite the rise in wages which has greatly augmented 
the purchasing power of the workers, the labor cost per gar- 
ment has been increased but little. Consumers have reaped 
their share of the benefits of technological changes, the elimi- 
nation of wasteful methods of production and the stabiliza- 
tion of the industry. 

We had a conference still twelve million people unem- 
ployed and the purchasing power is still low. We all say we 
want to cooperate. I believe an opportunity should be given 
to the leadership of the three groups agriculture, industry, 
and labor to come together and show what they can do. If 
labor is obstructive, I am willing that the light shall be di- 
rected upon it and labor made to cooperate We all must 
cooperate, and, therefore, may I throw out the suggestion 
that I believe the time is ripe for a conference of these 
groups. The success of the National Farm Institute has de- 
monstrated how fruitful such a conference might be 

I am fully aware that the problems of our whole eco- 
nomic fabric far transcend those of any particular industry. 
At the same time, I am convinced that the pattern which 
has proved so successful in the industry with which I have 
been associated holds the key to the solution of the greater 
problem. Assembled around the conference table, dealing 
with daily and long term problems as collaborators rather 
than as disputants, many of the differences which first seem 
irreconcilable appear as but two aspects of a common prob- 
lem which is susceptible of solution to the mutual advantage 
of all parties. 

The first requisite for any such cooperative effect is the 
establishment of strong, responsible and independent or- 
ganizations of workers and farmers. Although both labor 
and agriculture, because of their long and often bitter 
struggles against great aggregates of capital, have traditionally 
looked with suspicion upon the organization of special inter- 
ests in American life. I think it is clear that the processes 
of economic democracy require cooperative action by re- 
sponsible representatives of well organized groups. Let us 


take just a few moments to refer to some of the discussion 
I heard here this morning. I am sure that the opinions 
expressed were in the best kind of faith, but I am afraid of 
a lack of information on what is actually taking place in 
industry. I have heard explained that our trouble is with 
these inflexible union rates Now I have no quarrel with 
my friends in the American Federation of Labor. I am hop- 
ing that the time will soon arrive when again there will be a 
united labor movement in this country. Don't forget that 
up to 1929 the total of organized labor out of industry and 
services was something a little less than 12 per cent. How 
could 12 per cent of the workers affect so disastrously the 
whole country? But let's take our industry, an industry 
organized in men's clothing fully over 95 per cent of what 
we had in the years 1931 and '32, and there was not much 
government interference, and taxes I suppose were rather 
low. We have contributed, and it is a matter of record, 
through voluntary negotiations from 50 per cent and over 
reduction in our rates to help those employers. Now I 
make good my statement that at least 50 per cent and it is 
an industry working piecework the union cooperating to 
put in piecework so that people get paid for what they do 
and what happened? In 1930 the employers came and 
showed us their losses so we gave them a 10 or 12 per cent 
reduction. They had larger losses in 1931 and we gave a 
larger reduction, and we gave some of them as high as 25 
per cent in 1933 because it was just to make sure that they 
could last until the new administration took office, and the 
loss for that year was greater until this government inter- 
ference appeared and employment increased and they went 
out of red into black Gentlemen, these are matters of 

I believe if we want to make a contribution to our 
contemporary problems facing us, let us discuss frankly, 
honestly and sincerely what the problems are, and even when 
we know, it is pretty hard to come to the proper solution. 
I believe if in an industry like the clothing industry we 


could get management and labor to cooperate, and, ladies 
and gentlemen, whatever is said about our organization in 
a complimentary manner I can testify to, the great majority 
of employers in our industry have tried at all times to do 
the right thing if they could only afford to do it ; now if they 
could get this cooperation, why not try this active, positive 
cooperation on a national scale? 

It is for this reason that labor has welcomed the growth 
of farm organizations in this country. It is for this reason 
that it has perfected its own independent organizations. I 
stress the need that these groups be independent. For 
neither labor nor farmers will long consent to act as the 
catspaw for some interest other than their own. Labor has 
emphatically rejected the company union and is resolved to 
drive it from industrial life. I am confident that farmers 
equally reject "company" farm organizations dominated by 
non-farmers in an attempt to deepen the conflict between 
farmers and workers and prevent them from uniting on a 
common program. Gentlemen, it will be the greatest trag- 
edy for farmers and labor and the country if we are going 
to get distrust and division between these groups who 
ought to cooperate for the common good. 

No program for the reconstruction of our national eco- 
nomic life can succeed today without the assistance of gov- 
ernment. There are still those die-hards among us who 
continued to mouth the old shibboleth that business will 
revive very well by itself if only government stops interfer- 
ing. Others give lip service to the objectives of the New 
Deal program but bitterly attack every concrete measure to 
extend or even to maintain it. 

For most of us, however, the memory of the years that 
lay between 1929 and 1933 is still too green to countenance 
any retreat. For we recall that it was only the effort of 
government in 1933 to restore the national credit, give 
immediate relief against starvation, and how well I remem- 
ber the bread lines in the richest city in the world New 


York City in '31, '32, '33 and '34 Thank God we are 
spared of this degrading spectacle that confronted America 
in those years. Raise farm purchasing power and lay the 
basis for a more equitable distribution of the national in- 
come that pulled us up short at the very edge of the abyss. 
Nor have we forgotten that in 1937 the premature with- 
drawal of public funds from government construction and re- 
lief sent the business spiral into another tail-spin. It was 
only the resumption of public spending coupled with the 
fact that the government farm program and the growth 
of a strong labor movement were able to maintain some 
semblance of stability to the income of workers and farmers 
that prevented 1938 from becoming another 1932. 

These lessons have taught us that the government must 
continue to supply more and not less purchasing power to 
the national economy until such time as private enterprise 
has demonstrated its ability to take up the slack. 

Now, gentlemen, we are all agreeing on generalities, 
and I believe you really do. I am hopeful; I am an op- 
timist; I have seen the change in the thinking of leadership 
and the rank and file of Americans in every part of en- 
deavor. I believe that we are more ready today to face 
facts instead of hiding behind prejudices. 

If an increasing national income is to generate the 
purchasing power necessary to revive our economy, it must 
be equitably apportioned among all groups in our popula- 
tion. To assure this result, the intervention of government 
may again be necessary. Labor has long recognized the 
special claim of the farmer to this kind of protection and 
has consistently supported legislation proposed by the 
farmers themselves to assure them a fair share of the na- 
tional income. Minimum wage and hour legislation, which 
has now won almost universal acceptance, is designed to 
perform a similar function for the underprivileged indus- 
trial worker. 

On the other hand, legislative measures may be needed 
to prevent abuses of power by any group which threatens 


to absorb more than its fair share of the national income. 
Restraints may be required to prevent monopoly from tak- 
ing unfair advantage of its strategic position to skim the 
cream from a recovery movement by exacting exhorbitant 
prices and reaping exhorbitant profits. Labor believes that 
our experience since 1890 has demonstrated the futility of 
any program of trust-busting which ignores the realities of 
our mass production economy. But taxation and regulation 
offer other methods which may be invoked to restrain the 
abuse of power. 

It is not my purpose tonight to attempt to elaborate any 
legislative program, but only to indicate that areas in which 
the assistance of government is essential to the success of 
any recovery effort. The formulation of legislative meas- 
ures is one of the results which should emerge from the 
collective deliberations of fanner, labor and industrial groups, 
working in collaboration with government. It would be a 
constructive achievement, Mr. Secretary, ladies and gentle- 
men, if as a result of this meeting in Des Moines, govern- 
ment were to take the initiative of calling a conference of 
labor, agriculture, and industry, to consider and adopt a 
program for the full realisation of our resources of man, 
machines, and soil. Let us see how far we are ready to go 
in cooperating for the general good. We must go any 
length, because, ladies and gentlemen, unless we solve these 
problems through democratic processes, some demagogues 
will get into power and solve them for us; solve them in 
the way of the destruction of everything worthwhile in 
civilized life. We cannot afford not to cooperate, inspired 
by the will to succeed. In this great effort, there is among 
us the collective intelligence and ingenuity needed to chart 
the way. I am confident that such a conference could con- 
tribute much to the reconstruction of a national economy 
which will guarantee work and an abundant life for all. 




The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, 
Charles Evans Hughes, delivered this address m the House of Repre- 
sentatives at Washington on March 4, 1939 

Here were gathered the Chief Executive of the United States, 
the Cabinet, the Supreme Court, both bodies of the legislative branch, 
to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the first session of Congress. 
Presiding were the heads of the two Houses, John Nance Garner, 
of the Senate, and Speaker William Bankhead, of the House. The 
program included music (Mrs Gladys Swarthout, John Charles 
Thomas). Speeches were given by Mr. Bankhead, Key Pittman, 
President pro tempers of the Senate, and President Roosevelt whose 
address followed that of the Chief Justice. Senator Alben Barkley 
of Kentucky in introducing the Chief Justice stated. "It is my great 
honor and no less a pleasure to present to you today the eleventh 
Justice of the United States. He has already served longer than five 
of the other ten. Whether he shall outserve all of his predecessors, 
I make no prediction. I am happy to record that he seems to be in 
robust health of mind and body. 

"But whether he shall serve as long as Marshall or Taney or 
Waite or Fuller or White, I think posterity will assign to him a 
place among the ablest, most influential, and most profound jurists 
and legal philosophers who have ever served upon the Bench as its 
presiding Justice. In profound legal learning, in impressive exposi- 
tion, in the dignity of his bearing, I dare say no previous Justice 
excelled him. We all take pride in his contributions to the 3*1?'*. 
trative and judicial history of America. I take pride in the broad 
accomplishments of his intellectual processes, as well as the depth 
of his moral foundations, which are part of his character, and have 
made hm so impressive a figure in whatever capacity he has chosen 
to occupy in his long public service. I present to you the ChiHF 
Justice of the United States." 

Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members 
of the Senate and House of Representatives, Gentlemen of 
the Diplomatic Corps, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

1 House Document 212, 76th Congress, first session. Reprinted through 
the courtesy of Chief Justice Hughes. 


I thank you, Senator Barkley, from the depths of my heart 
for your very generous words 

The most significant fact in connection with this an- 
niversary is that after 150 years, notwithstanding expansion 
of territory, enormous increase in population and profound 
economic changes, despite direct attack and subversive in- 
fluences, there is every indication that the vastly preponderant 
sentiment of the American people is that our form of gov- 
ernment shall be preserved. 

We come from our distinct departments of governmental 
activity to testify to our unity of aim in maintaining that 
form of government in accordance with our common pledge. 
We are here not as masters, but as servants, not to glory 
in power, but to attest our loyalty to the commands and 
restrictions laid down by our sovereign, the people of the 
United States, in whose name and by whose will we exercise 
our brief authority. If as such representatives we have, as 
Benjamin Franklin said "no more durable preeminence 
than the different grains in an hourglass" we serve our 
hour by unremitting devotion to the principles which have 
given our Government both stability and capacity for orderly 
progress in a world of turmoil and revolutionary upheavals. 

Gratifying as is the record of achievement, it would be 
extreme folly to engage in mere laudation or to surrender 
to the enticing delusions of a thoughtless optimism. Forms 
of government, however well contrived, cannot assure their 
own permanence. If we owe to the wisdom and restraint 
of the fathers a system of government which has thus far 
stood the test, we all recognise that it is only by wisdom 
and restraint in our own day that we can make that system 
last. If today we find ground for confidence that our in- 
stitutions which have made for liberty and strength will 
be maintained, it will not be due to abundance of physical 
resources or to productive capacity, but because these are at 
the command of a people who still cherish the principles 
which underlie our system and because of the general ap- 
preciation of what is essentially sound in our governmental 


With respect to the influences which shape public opin- 
ion, we live in a new world. Never have these influences 
operated more directly, or with such variety of facile instru- 
ments, or with such overwhelming force. We have mass 
production in opinion as well as in goods. 

The grasp of tradition and of sectional prejudgment is 
loosened. Postulates of the past must show cause. Our in- 
stitutions will not be preserved by veneration of what is 
old, if that is simply expressed in the formal ritual of a 
shrine. The American people are eager and responsive. 
They listen attentively to a vast multitude of appeals and, 
with this receptivity, it is only upon their sound judgment 
that we can base our hope for a wise conservatism with con- 
tinued progress and appropriate adaptation to new needs. 

We shall do well on this anniversary if the thought of the 
people is directed to the essentials of our democracy. Here 
in this body we find the living exponents of the principle 
of representative government, not government by direct 
mass action, but by representation which means leadership 
as well as responsiveness and accountability 

Here, the ground-swells of autocracy, destructive of 
parliamentary independence, have not yet upset or even 
disturbed the authority and responsibility of the essential 
legislative branch of democratic institutions. We have a 
national Government equipped with vast powers which have 
proved to be adequate to the development of a great nation, 
and at the same time maintaining the balance between 
centralized authority and local autonomy. 

It has been said that to preserve that balance, if we did 
not have states we should have to create them. In our 48 
states we have the separate sources of power necessary to 
protect local interests and thus also to preserve the central 
authority, in the vast variety of our concerns, from breaking 
down under its own weight. Our states, each with her historic 
background and supported by the loyal sentiment of her citi- 
zens, afFord opportunity for the essential activity of political 
units, the advantages of which no artificial territorial arrange- 
ment could secure. 


If our checks and balances sometimes prevent the speedy 
action which is thought desirable, they also assure in the 
long run a more deliberate judgment. And what the people 
really want, they generally get* With the ultimate power of 
change through amendment in their hands they are always 
able to obtain whatever a preponderant and abiding senti- 
ment demands. 

We not only praise individual liberty but our constitu- 
tional system has the unique distinction of insuring it. Our 
guaranties of fair trials, of due process in the protection of 
life, liberty and property which stands between the citizens 
and arbitrary power of religious freedom, of free speech, 
free press and free assembly, are the safeguards which have 
been erected against the abuses threatened by gusts of pas- 
sion and prejudice which in misguided zeal would destroy 
the basic interests of democracy. 

We protect the fundamental right of minorities, in order 
to save democratic government from destroying itself by 
the excesses of its own power. 

The firmest ground for confidence in the future is that 
more than ever we realize that, while democracy must have 
its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual 

I am happy to be here as the representative of the 
tribunal which is charged with the duty of maintaining, 
through the decision of controversies, these constitutional 
guaranties. We are a separate but not an independent arm 
of government You, not we, have the purse and the sword. 
You, not we, determine the establishment and the jurisdiction 
of the lower Federal courts and the bounds of the appellate 
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. 

The Congress first assembled on March 4, 1789, and on 
September 24, 1789, as its twentieth enactment, passed the 
Judiciary Act to establish the judicial courts of the United 
States a statute which is a monument of wisdom, one of the 
most satisfactory acts in the long history of notable con- 
gressional legislation. It may be said to take rank in our 
annals as next in importance to the Constitution itself. 


In thus providing the judicial establishment, and in 
equipping and sustaining it, you have made possible the 
effective functioning of the department of government which 
is designed to safeguard with judicial impartiality and in- 
dependence the interests of liberty. 

But in the great enterprise of making democracy work- 
able, we are all partners. One member of our body politic 
cannot say to another "I have no need of thee." We work 
in successful cooperation by being true, each department to 
its own function, and all to the spirit which pervades our 
institutions, exalting the processes of reason, seeking 
through the very limitations of power the promotion of the 
wise use of power, and finding the ultimate security of life, 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the promise of 
continued stability and a rational progress, in the good sense 
of the American people. 



Mr. Tugwell's speech represented the affirmative in a joint debate 
vith Raymond Moley before the New York Herald Tribune's Eighth 
\nnual Forum on current problems, held on October 25, 1938, at the 
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. Three thousand women 
nade up the audience. The general theme of this session of the 
:onference was "Shall We Break with Tradition?" 

Special interest was attached to the views of these two speakers 
nasmuch as formerly both had professorships at Columbia University 
md had followed the invitation of President Roosevelt to work at 
Washington in the early recovery program of the administration 
in the spring of 1933, following the Bank Holiday Mrs Ogden 
Reid, vice-president of the New York Herald-Tribune, presided 
aver the various sessions, including the Tugwell-Moley debate, 
tn introducing Mr. Tugwell, Mrs. Reid said, "Yesterday it was 
stated in the press that a 'third term for President Roosevelt* would 
be discussed. This was a mistake The speeches of the two men 
will present, from an academic standpoint only, the values for and 
against of preserving or breaking with an American tradition.'* 

"The first speaker, following many years' experience as professor 
of economics at Columbia, was associated with the present government 
in Washington as Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and later Under 
Secretary and Resettlement Administrator." 

The general theme of the conference was "America Facing 
Tomorrow's World." Appearing on the program were R A. Millikan, 
President Roosevelt, President Robert Hutchins of Chicago, and many 
other notables. Mis Reid stated: "I am proud to think that the 
sessions of the Forum have given an example of the blessing of free 
speech. As has been the custom of these gatherings, differing shades 
Df political, economic, and social opinions have been represented." 

The Tugwell-Moley debate was widely commented upon, and 
the discussion was generally considered a draw. 

Whether presidents of the United States ought, under 
any circumstances, to be given a third term is not, it seems 
to me, a matter of principle, but rather one of those ex- 
pedient questions which we learn the answers to after long 

* Through the courtesy of the author. Reprinted from the Umted States 
News, November 7, 1938. 


And as yet there has been no experience. Lacking this 
there is a good deal of loose talk about "tradition." I don't 
know exactly what makes a tradition; but I feel certain that 
traditions are not imposed on a people! 

And opposition to a third term in the present case is, I 
am convinced, special pleading on the part of those who are 
interested to prevent a particular man from continuing in of- 
fice. It is not a sentiment which the American people espe- 
cially cherish. 

It is sheer accident that no president in our history has 
yet had a third term; several have been willing; and in no 
instance can it honestly be contended that a candidate for the 
office has failed because that issue was raised against him 

During the first few years of our history we were not too 
far removed from monarchy, and Washington's famous re- 
fusal to serve longer followed the actual suggestion that he 
might become king. 

But since then there has been nothing remotely similar. 
And as for the more recent intimations of dictatorship, no 
one, so far as I know, has suggested such a thing who wants 
it; it comes from those who hope to build a bogy out of it. 

But there can be other kinds of dictatorships For in- 
stance, the current "little group of willful men" who control 
the Senate frequently maneuver themselves into a position of 
dominance. But their authority in politics is never given an 
ugly name at least by the reactionaries, who, in this case, 
would be doing the name-calling. 

On the whole, the contention that we have a traditional 
repugnance to third terms is something which all true 
Democrats ought to examine before accepting 

It is my own belief that "moral" opposition to a third 
term comes almost wholly from those who think that govern- 
ment, and especially the executive branch, ought to be kept 

There used to be a good deal of such sentiment growing 
out of the long struggle for personal liberty. We were still 
dose to that struggle in 1789. Some of our Constitution 


makers were, in fact, more concerned with guarding individ- 
uals against the State than they were with making the State 
effective in its control over individuals It was better they 
felt, that nothing should be done than that the rights of citi- 
zens should be invaded. 

And although these precious rights have since been tor- 
tured, sometimes into liberties for corporations and for men 
of great property, the appeal is still made in the old terms 
just as though no change in industry and finance had taken 
place through all these years. 

Those who, for reasons of their own, have wanted gov- 
ernment to be weak have made common cause with those 
who, because they knew how to control and to manipulate 
government as it was, did not want to see the balance upset. 

Only very gradually did the demand for action become 
more important than that for inaction. And even then it 
was confined largely to certain disadvantaged groups. These 
came to see that if the national government did not do some 
jobs for them they would not be done at all. Corporations 
exploited their public freely when the State was paralyzed. 
But any benefits for the masses depended on vigorous govern- 
ment action. 

These groups have become so large and so insistent that 
ways have had to be found to meet their demands. Some- 
where some force had to be discovered which could move 
the vast engine of Federal power off center and start it work- 
ing for the general good. 

This force had to oppose itself to the inertia written into 
the Constitution itself which had come to benefit private 
privilege rather than public good. Inertia was guarded by 
our famous system of checks and balances a system almost, 
but not quite, in complete adjustment. A government of 
executive, legislative and judicial departments, carefully sep- 
arated and pitted against each other, prevented action often 
enough. A bicameral legislature, which involved a Senate 
elected for a long term and with equal representation for 
states regardless of their population, went even further to 
insure sterility. 


But human institutions are seldom perfect. When the 
forefathers gave the Senate certain executive functions, such 
as the power to confirm nominations and to ratify treaties, 
they gave it a slight advantage which, coupled with its local 
affiliations, it was bound to pursue with an energy propor- 
tioned to the weight of the interests it served. 

Its aggressiveness in defense of inertia was, of course, 
aimed at the Executive. 

For the Constitution makers had not foreseen the growth 
of political parties, and when they developed the president 
naturally assumed leadership of the one in power. This 
gave him a touch with the people which was more direct and 
more responsive than existed in any other part of the gov- 

The president, in fact, became the people's champion. 
Also he had a certain advantage, for, if the Senate had ex- 
ecutive powers, the president had some legislative ones; he 
could recommend the legislation which the people had de- 
manded of his party and he could veto that which he did not 
feel to be in their interest. 

There thus grew up a continuing conflict between presi- 
dent and Senate which has risen to dramatic climaxes many 
times in our history the president, driven by his duties of 
leadership, seeking to enhance Federal control over economic 
forces; the Senate, restrained by ties with local interests 
whose privileges were in jeopardy, and with only weak re- 
sponsibility to party or to people, seeking to check the Ex- 
ecutive and to hamper his efforts. 

Efforts to reform our upper house have not succeeded. 
At about the same time in history the attempt was made here 
and in Great Britain succeeded there and the House of 
Lords is now reduced to becoming impotent It wasted it- 
self here on an amendment providing for direct election, but 
no change was made in the Senate's powers, and no reform 
of its rules has taken place. It remains immovable, powerful 
and by nature committed to inaction. 


Presidents, in consequence, have often been more conspic- 
lous for frustration than for achievement. On the one 
land, because of party leadership and of responsibility to the 
electorate, they have moved m a constant glare of account- 
ibility. In a real sense they have become, as time has passed, 
ess important as executives and more so as pushers of legis- 
lation. As such, and because of the daily and hourly re- 
minders flooding in upon them of people's expectations, they 
lave sought to circumvent checks and upset balances. They 
lave frantically groped for leverage to move the Senate. 

Time and again they have been checked. For the Senate 
has felt little compulsion to act. It is 96 persons, not one; 
md among 96 responsibility can be shifted about until it is 
lost to sight. On the days of crucial voting it is easy to be 
ill or to be away on pressing business. And it is an old art 
:o ruin bills by innocent amendments. There are a thousand 
nasty ways of repulsing presidents who push too hard This 
urgent need of the Executive and resistance of the Senate 
have, between them, led to a species of trading by which a 
strange Senate control over administrative departments has 
been gained in exchange for some measure of that coopera- 
tion which the Executive has so desperately reached for. 

The vast number of appointments, the disposal of privi- 
leges and immunities, which any new president possessed, 
were greedily eyed by senators who knew the strength of 
their positions. In the end they usually got enough of them 
to tie the Executive pretty tight to their policy of inaction. 

We see, then, that a kind of cycle develops Presidents 
are busy, during their first term, getting into legislation what 
they can of promises made during the campaign. They may 
have some help from friendly senators, but of these only 
one-third are elected at the same time. And of this one- 
third a certain number belongs to other parties, and others to 
different factions of the same party. Still others have gone 
along "on the party leader's coat-tails," as we say, bowing 
before his temporary popularity but determined to bring it to 
an early end, and feeling independent because their term is 
longer anyway than his. 


But the president must trade with all of them who can 
be got to go along at all. He puts in pawn the jobs at his 
disposal; his chief political lieutenant perhaps from a cab- 
inet post may go further than he in granting privileges. By 
these means a certain progress is made. But it is costly, and 
at the end, the president is usually a sadder and a wiser man. 
The Senate is complacent to a degree which depends on how 
much has been given away in return for favors received. But 
normally inertia wins. 

If the president fails to convince the people that he is 
working in their interest or that he is effective at it, they may 
not even give him a second term, much less a third but if 
he is successful in either, and especially if he attracts general 
approval by his efforts, he is returned to office in spite of 
Senate opposition and the duel goes on. 

It is at this time at the beginning of the second term 
that the worst estrangement comes It is a life-and-death 
struggle this time For by now, although the President 
knows how strong his opposition is, he feels that the people 
are with him. And he makes an even more determined at- 
tempt to put into action the program to which he is pledged 

But the opposition is in a more strategic position than 
before, since it has less to gain from yielding. He has al- 
located most of the jobs at his disposal, for instance, and so 
has not this means to persuade affection. Furthermore, he 
now finds that he heads a branch of government which he 
can direct only nominally because its personnel owes alle- 
giance to his adversaries. Administrative disloyalty begins to 
disrupt the conduct even of ordinary business, and scandalous 
inefficiency becomes a real danger. 

Second terms, for the greater part, are stalemates. Little 
is done, that is, in the way of legislation. After a time, of 
course, the worst political appointees are somehow got rid 
of; the president and his Cabinet, having turned from their 
legisaltive functions in despair, attempt to purge and repair 
the executive agencies already in existence 

On the whole this condition of stalemate, and of Execu- 
tive preoccupation with administration, is one which suits 


the reactionary. He is prospering as things are. He wants 
nothing changed. And the Senate is playing his game 
satisfactorily, thus fulfilling the function which he had an- 
ticipated for it. 

The Executive at the end of this time, may well be in a 
mood to fight, to go to the people and tell them the truth 
about their "so-called representatives." If he is a real man, 
and if his energies have not been exhausted by struggle, he 
will want to tear up the earth this time in the effort to do 
those things which he has become more and more convinced 
that the people want. This is, I believe, the reason third 
terms find support among progressives and opposition among 

Eight years is not long for a reform government to 
complete itself. It may easily take more than that. If 
reactionaries can stop it before completion they will bless 
their luck, but progressives are committed to the full cycle 
of reconstruction. 

No superstition can blind them to this urgent need. 
Their purpose may well require the continuance of that 
certain man. If it does, he will have to serve, and the third 
term bogey will need to be laid away and forgotten. 



The Honorable Frank Murphy, Attorney General of the United 
States, delivered this speech over the radio on March 27, 1939, 
at 10:30 PM. over the Blue Network of the National Broadcasting 
Company. The address was on the National Radio Forum and 
arranged by the Washington Evening Star in cooperation with the 
National Broadcasting Company. 

Democracy today is in a fight for its life. Wherever 
we look we see determined efforts to tear down the things 
that the masses of mankind have been painfully struggling 
to achieve all through the ages. The right of self-govern- 
ment, the right of every man to speak his thoughts freely, 
the opportunity to express his individual nature in his daily 
life and work, the privilege of believing in the religion that 
his own conscience tells him is right all these precious 
things that men have won through blood and anguish are 
hanging in the balance. 

We must not let the scales drop the other way. If we 
do, we betray civilization itself We must fight to keep these 
treasures just as bravely and vigorously as those who have 
gone before us fought to gain them. Democracy will not 
save itself. It isn't something automatic that will go on 
and on by its own power. We can't just be dreamy and 
sentimental about it. We must bestir ourselves and see that it 
works smoothly and efficiently in every respect. We must 
actually apply the principles of democracy to the world we 
live in give them life and substance and meaning. 

It will not be enough to do just half the job. We will 
have to be thorough and conscientious, because those who 
would like to destroy democracy are doing a thorough job 

1 By permission of the author. Tert furnished through the courtesy of 
Honorable Frank Murphy. 


of it wherever and whenever they have the chance They 
are giving no quarter neither must we. 

The phase of democracy that I have in mind particularly 
tonight is civil liberty But I want to emphasize once more 
that our fight will not be won by half-way measures. Not 
only must we make ami libetty a living reality, but the 
democratic ideal must be applied in every part of our life 
social, political, and economic. 

Perhaps it would be helpful to start at the beginning 
and ask, "Why have civil liberties at all?" Generally 
speaking, we believe in them because we are convinced 
they represent the best possible compromise between the 
governmental regulation that is necessary for an orderly 
society and the absolute freedom that has no limits except 
the laws of nature But there is another reason that comes 
closer home. We who are devotees of democracy believe in 
civil liberties because we know that without such rights as 
freedom of religion, freedon of speech and press, freedom 
to assemble peacefully and to petition our government for 
the correction of wrongs, democracy cannot possibly exist. 

If this, in brief, is the reason for our faith in civil 
liberties, what is our present situation'* 

It is common for orators on patriotic occasions to point 
to the early years of our Union as the period in which love 
of civil liberty was at its height. They remind us that it 
was the denial of liberty that drove the Fathers into violent 
revolution. They point out that the colonies refused to 
ratify the Constitution until they were assured that a Bill 
of Rights would be added From such good evidence, 
they picture the period surrounding the Revolution as a 
"Golden Age** of liberty from which, for one reason or 
another, we have steadily declined. 

There is another view which, I suspect is held by a 
considerable number of people today that seems to take 
civil liberty pretty much for granted. Those who subscribe 
to it look back over 150 years of political democracy in 
this country and conclude that what has existed so long 


will continue to exist If they see any present danger to 
their liberties, it is at best a long way off. 

There is a good deal to be said for both these attitudes, 
and particularly the first. Certainly none of us can forget 
or ever cease to revere the spirit of those who wrote and 
embraced the Declaration of Independence. We cannot for- 
get how bravely they took up Patrick Henry's challenge of 
"liberty or death" and fought their way to liberty at such 
terrific cost. 

But if we examine these attitudes closely, we will find 
that neither of them is entirely accurate. The first, which 
views the present with alarm, is unrealistic because actually we 
have made progress in public tolerence since those early 
days. As evidence, we need only to recall the notorious 
Alien and Sedition Acts, legislated and enforced by the 
last Federalist Administration which preceded the term of 
Thomas Jefferson. Under the Alien Act, non-citizens could 
be deported or could be imprisoned for three years without 
trial or hearing Under the Sedition Act, a newspaper edi- 
tor or public speaker or, for that matter, a person in private 
conversation, could not utter any word which might be 
interpreted as a reflection on the Administration. Violation 
of this kw could be punished by presidential order without 
trial, hearing, or the right of appeal. Unbelievable as it 
may seem today, the proprietors and editors of the four 
leading anti-Federalist newspapers of the day were prose- 
cuted under this statute for sedition. One man was given a 
sentence of two years for erecting a sign which read, "Down- 
fall to the Traitors of America/' 

In 1800 public feeling against the Alien and Sedition 
Acts resulted in the election of a new administration. But 
political persecution was by no means at end. From time 
to time in the history of the succeeding years we find strong 
evidence that the group in power or in the majority was 
actively intolerant of those whose political views differed 
from their own. 


In those days, as now, it needed a broad mind and a great 
heart to be tolerant of a political philosophy utterly opposed 
to one's own. Here was an infant nation embarking on a 
political experiment without equal in the history of the 
human race. The principle of government by the people 
was on trial before a world committed almost entirely to 
government by kings. What could be more natural than 
that men of strong convictions, each convinced that his way 
was the best and each one determined that the new experi- 
ment must succeed, should come to disagreement over 
policies and methods? In fact, every ingredient of a period 
of great stress in the national life was at hand. And it is 
a time like that when men are most sorely tempted to look 
upon civil liberty as a protection only to themselves and not 
to those with whom they disagree. 

Obviously we are in a period of that kind today. The 
danger of class consciousness, something for which the 
vast majority of Americans have little sympathy in normal 
times has been increased by unemployment and insecurity. 
The danger is not a theoretical one. It is not something 
invented in the mind of the social psychologist. It is an 
actual condition evidenced by happenings that come almost 
daily to my attention. 

Only recently I received a letter from a wife and mother 
complaining that the small business conducted by her hus- 
band and son had been ruined because they opposed the 
political principles of the city administration Intimidation 
had driven their customers away. Here is a form of perse- 
cution without benefit of an Alien and Sedition Act! 

In another community a young man who actively opposed 
the boss of the local political machine was indicted on a 
false charge. He was tried and convicted by a jury con- 
sisting entirely of persons connected politically with the 
leader of the machine. He was denied bail on appeal. 
After several postponements the case came to the appellate 
court but not until after the defendant had served his term. 

Reports have come to the Department of Justice that per- 
sons who have testified before Congressional Committees 


have been beaten or discharged from their employment. In 
other words, for exercising the elementary right of conveying 
their views to their government, they were subjected to phys- 
ical cruelty or loss of their jobs 

I believe most of you will remember the recent Harlan 
County prosecution which brought to light widespread denial 
of the rights of workmen to organize and bargain collec- 
tively. That unfortunate condition is steadily being cor- 
rected, and I believe that as time goes on there will be less 
and less of it. 

Events such as these are the reason for my earlier state- 
ment that the casual attitude which takes civil liberties for 
granted and recognizes no danger to them is just as un- 
realistic as the view that the American people are steadily 
leaving their love of liberty behind them. 

I do not wish to appear to you as an alarmist. I have the 
greatest confidence that the American people will ride 
through this storm with their liberties and their faith in those 
liberties unharmed. 

I only want to repeat and to stress as strongly as I can 
that warning which John Curran uttered 150 years ago for 
his generation, for our own, and for all that are to follow: 
"The condition upon which God has given liberty to man is 
eternal vigilance." My purpose is to emphasize that if we 
wish to keep what we have gained and so long held, we must 
be alert. We must be on guard against those tendencies and 
attitudes, in ourselves as well as others, that open the door to 
one denial of liberty and then another. 

The government, of course, can help us keep watch. It 
can take the initiative and lead the way. But we must 
remember and this is important that government cannot 
do the whole job. 

I am afraid that a great deal of the present apathy toward 
civil rights traces back to the notion that their protection is 
the sole responsibility of the Federal Government. I am 
afraid there is considerable misunderstanding as to the mean- 
ing and effect of the Federal Bill of Rights which includes 
the first ten amendments of the Federal Constitution. 


Students of law know, of course, that the Bill of Rights 
in the Federal Constitution is a prohibition on the Federa 
Government. In other words, it forbids the Federal Govern 
ment to deny to the people those liberties of speech and as 
sembly, of religion and the press, that are so vital to oui 
freedom. Each state having its own constitution and Bill oi 
Rights, it was assumed by the authors of the Federal Consti 
tution that the state governments would protect their owr 
citizens from infringement of these liberties not caused by 
the Federal Government. 

Since the Federal Constitution was adopted, however, an 
other amendment the Fourteenth, has been added, whicfc 
provides that no State shall make any law abridging the 
privileges and immunities of United States citizens, or de 
prive any person of life, liberty or property without due 
process, or deny to him the equal protection of the laws 
Under this amendment it has been held that a citizen ma} 
invoke the aid of the Federal courts when he is denied full 
protection by the courts of his State. 

I do not wish to give the impression that the Federa] 
Government is powerless to protect civil liberty. For al 
though most of a citizen's rights are created and protected b) 
the Constitution and laws of his State, there are certain rights 
which he obtains not from his State but because he is a citi- 
zen of the United States The distinction should be kept in 
mind, however, when the Federal Government fails to act in 
situations that seem to call for its intervention. It serves to 
explain why it does not take action in every situation where 
some liberty has been abused. 

The Federal Government today is determined, neverthe- 
less, to protect civil liberties by all means available to it. It 
will not be for this faction or that, this class or that class, 
this nationality or that one, but for all the people We pro- 
pose to protect civil liberties for the business man and the 
laborer alike, for the Jew and the Gentile, and ftie people of 
all races and creeds, whatever their origin. We believe it 
must be done consistently and with a fine impartiality other- 
wise, it cannot be truly democratic. 


In this determination we have recently created a separate 
unit on civil rights m the Criminal Division of the Depart- 
ment of Justice. One of the first duties of this unit has been 
to consider and determine just where the Federal Govern- 
ment can act, and to define the limits of its jurisdiction. 
Within those limits it will exercise its second duty of order- 
ing investigation and prosecuting for violations of rights 
which the United States Government is charged with protect- 

The unit is now at work under my supervision. The 
complaints of citizens which have already reached me have 
been given careful consideration. In many cases, we have 
had to reply that the matters complained of were so com- 
pletely outside of the Federal Government's jurisdiction that 
we could do nothing In other cases, we have proceeded to 
obtain the facts and to determine whether or not a Federal 
law has been violated. 

Yet, when all this is done, when the Federal Government 
has done its part, and when the State has given all the pro- 
tection it can, something more is required. The courts can- 
not review every denial of civil rights that may occur in our 
midst. Year by year since the Constitution was adopted, it 
has become more and more obvious that tolerance cannot be 
enforced by law. No government, however strong, can 
guarantee complete observance of the spirit of the Bill of 
Rights. The Golden Rule cannot be made effective by 
United States Marshals. The great protector of civil liberty, 
the final source of its enforcement, now and always, is the 
invincible power of public opinion. 

No court or law can make wholly inviolate the right of 
freedom of speech. Once it is denied by ordinance or some 
arbitrary exercise of power, what decree or court award can 
restore to the citizen denied, his right to speak on that occa- 
sion? Only the insistent will of a tolerant and democratic 
and informed people can insure freedom at all times to the 
voice that utters an unpopular view. 

The courts can provide a remedy for lawlessness, but for 
its complete prevention there is only one place to look, and 


that is to an overwhelming public determination that it must 
not happen here. 

It is anything but an easy job, this task of protecting civil 
liberty, and it is made twice burdensome by the fact that 
there is little pleasure in enforcing liberty for those who 
would deny liberty to others if they were in power. It is not 
easy to detest an extremist philosophy and yet insist on the 
right of any man to advocate it freely. 

Yet, apparently we must do just this if we are to practice 
our faith in democracy. We must remember that America 
was founded by men who came to these shores to escape in- 
tolerance in other lands. We must remember that the politi- 
cal system which they advocated, fought for, and established 
under the Constitution was heresy in the eyes of the govern- 
ment that ruled them. We must never forget that the demo- 
cratic way is not to crush the alien view but to let it be heard 
and to defeat it by demonstrating that our own way of living 
contributes the most to human happiness. 

Only in this way through the vigilance of a citizen body 
thoroughly schooled in the meaning and purpose of civil 
liberty will we achieve the general enjoyment of civil lib- 
erty. Government, by precept and example, and by provid- 
ing remedies in individual cases of denial of liberty, can 
make a large contribution. But in the last analysis, the 
American tradition of individual freedom, handed down to 
us by Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, 
and many another devotee of liberty, will be carried forward 
only if each of us practices every day that faith in which Vol- 
taire is said to have declared to his adversary, tl l disapprove 
of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right 
to say it." 



Thomas E. Dewey delivered this final summation speech in the 
Hines Lottery Case, on February 24, 1939 In August, 1939, James 
J Hines, Tammany leader of the Sixteenth Assembly District of 
New York City, was brought to trial, accused of protecting Dutch 
Schultz and other underground figures in their operation of the illegal 
"policy-numbers racket." New York Gty District Attorney, Thomas 
E Dewey, opened the case for the State before Supreme Court 
Judge Ferdinand Pecora Lloyd Paul Stryker was attorney for the 

Young Dewey, special prosecutor for New York City, and 
then elected prosecuting attorney in 1937, had to his credit one 
acquittal and seventy-two convictions in two years as Special Prosecutor 
of rackets and racketeers, including those of the restaurants and 
trucking businesses. 

The first Hines case ended in a mistrial in August, 1938, when 
Justice Pecora, on the ground that a reference by Dewey had 
prejudiced the jury, stopped the proceedings When the trial was 
resumed in February, 1939, before Judge Charles C. Nott, Jr , Dewey 
and Stryker again became the opposing counsel. Dewey's star witness, 
numbers racketeer George Weinberg, had committed suicide More- 
over, the defense had of course secured a complete preview of the 
State's case. Dewey, in the final summation, spent an entire day 
analyzing the argument. He took up one by one the witnesses called 
to support his testimony and established each, in turn breaking down 
those for the defense. In contrast to Mr. Stryker, who "declaimed 
boldly" Dewey spoke in a low-pitched voice that could hardly be 
heard in the back of the crowded court-room. His mode was con- 
versational and his manner that of a "man reciting facts" The 
excerpt included here represents merely the conclusion of his address 
to the jury. 

Hines was found guilty on all counts. Dewey affirmed that the 
conviction was "a reassertion of democracy's ability to clean house." 
The verdict, four month's earlier, might have given Dewey the 
governorship of New York State. As it was, in the campaign 
intervening between the first and second trials, Dewey lost by some 
50,000 votes in his campaign against Governor Lehman. The ulti- 
mate political effect of this successful prosecution in the Hines case* 
upon Dewey as a Republican presidential possibility remains to be 

*By permission of the author. Reprinted from the Ntv York Ttmes. 
February 25, 1939. 


They've all got to be liars if there is anything to this de- 
fense, because practically all of them gave testimony about 
things which corroborate in every detail the testimony of 
other witnesses. You are compelled to believe every essen- 
tial bit of testimony by every witness in this case from be- 
ginning to end, despite the adjectives that may be used 
against them. You are compelled not only, I am sure, by 
your own impression of their frankness but also by the 
insurmountable mass of sheer facts 

They are not the only people who have to be corrupt 
if there is to be anything to this defense. I must be, be- 
cause it is implied that I or my assistants supplied grand 
jury testimony so witnesses could rig up the story. Not 
only that, but each of my assistants has to be guilty of some 
conniving, each of these police officers has to be, and the 
investigators on my staff. 

Gentlemen, when a defense has to do that, the conclu- 
sion is inevitable. It is not a pleasant task for a District 
Attorney to go through a case like this once, to say nothing 
of twice, but there is a high duty that comes to all of us in 
our lives. We have ours every day. We have to do it. If 
we did not do it, civilization and the democracy of which 
my learned adversary spoke, would be in a very, very sad 

Sentence in this case on the defendant is secondary. It 
is no concern of mine. The Court can suspend sentence, 
give one day, one year, whatever he pleases. That is up 
to the Court. It is none of your business and none of my 
business. I don't want it to be. The important thing is 
that you declare to the people of New York, the police of 
New York, that they are free, that they won't any longer 
be betrayed by a corrupt alliance between crime and politics, 
that that alliance is going to be smashed by this jury and 
branded as something we won't stand for, because we want 
to keep the kind of a system we have in this country and 
we don't want it polluted by a betrayer and protection of 
gangsters by political leaders. 


You are good New Yorkers and you love your city. 
You want your city to get better and better and to remain 
and become cleaner. You want to remove cancers that grow 
at the heart of your government, wreck the morale of your 
police force, wreck the morale of your courts and wreck 
the morale of any public official who has to come within 
the contaminating influence of a politician operating with 
gangster -money as his background, and if you do not do 
that, gentlemen, what are the consequences? What notice 
are you serving on the police and on the public and on 
everybody else? You know; I don't even need to outline it. 

Here is the very thing which makes organized crime 
possible. Without it there couldn't be organized crime for 
five minutes in this country, unless the paralyzing hand of 
a crooked politician weren't available to break an honest cop 
or to tell a magistrate what to do, or to use gangster funds 
to elect a public prosecutor who is under his control. 

Let us decide what we want for ourselves and our com- 
munity. Do we want to remove that cancer? Do we want 
to see that in the future it shan't happen again? Do we want 
to keep the processes of our system clean or do we want to 
say, "No, no, we will go back and take the consequences," 
and then you will have the kind of things my friend was 
talking about. No, I don't think we want that. I think 
we want to see that the men who are ultimately responsible 
for these things are punished for their sins, that notice is 
served on the world that that shan't happen again, that for 
these things we know there is a certain retribution visited 
by the community, which is you 

We are helpless, gentlemen, unless that is visited. I 
know you will do your duty. I know you will not say, 
"Go back, prosecute the players and the collectors, prosecute 
the burglar who gets caught, prosecute the boy who steals 
from the stand on the corner, but don't get the man who 
sent him to steal; prosecute the cheap and the petty, and 
perpetuate and turn loose those who made it possible " 

I thank you for your long attention. I know you will 
do your duty as citizens of New York. 




This address was delivered in New York on April 20th, 1939, at 
a dinner of the Merchants and Manufacturers celebrating the opening 
of the New York "World's Fair. Six hundred persons attended the 
dinner, held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. Mrs August Belmont 
was toastmaster On the program also were George McAneny, Chair- 
man of the Fair Board; Juan Tnppe, President of the Pan American 
Airways, speaking for industry; Dr. Walter Damrosch, splicing for 
the arts; and Dr Millikan, Nobel prize winner, and Chairman of 
the Executive Council of the California Institute of Technology, 
representing science. American periodicals prominently reported the 
address (see, for example, the editorial, New York Times, April 
23, 1939). 

Even though "prophecy is the most gratuitous form of 
mistake," and even though there is obviously the possibility 
that something so completely foreign to my thinking may 
happen as to make any prognosis that I may hazard now look 
ridiculous in the years to come, yet I am going to be foolish 
and rash enough to forecast that, barring the return of the 
dark ages through the triumph the world over of tyranny 
over freedom, of the spirit of world conquest over the spirit 
of reason and peaceful change, life in America fifty or a 
hundred years hence will not differ nearly as much from 
the life of today as the life of today differs from that of a 
century or even a half-century ago. The processes and 
techniques that have been responsible for the enormous 
changes of the last century will continue to improve our 
economic and social well-being, but the main changes will 
come from a more general understanding by the voting pub- 
he of the nature of these processes and a more intelligent 
use of them. This will mean the gradual elimination of the 
effort to violate natural and social laws, or arithmetically 

1 By permission of the author. Text furnished through the courtesy of 
Dr. Malikan. 


stated, to make two plus two equal six, as we have been so 
ignorantly and so disastrously trying to do in much of our 
social floundering of recent years. 

So long as one is considering only the physical or biologi- 
cal basis of change, the informed and competent scientist 
has some reason for confidence in his analysis as to the 
general direction which progress can and must take. He at 
least knows a great many sorts of things that will not 
happen, and these are in the main the very things that the 
uninformed dreamers and wishful thinkers the emotional 
pseudo-reformers, not the real ones hope and expect to see 
happen. Thus, we shall never be able to transform the 
energy released in the burning of coal or in the absorption of 
the sun's rays directly and completely into electrical energy. 
Indeed, we shall never be able to go very much farther in 
this direction than we have already gone. 

Today the most efficient internal combustion engines 
transform into work 35 per cent of the heat energy released 
in the burning of the fuel, and it is safe to predict that in 
continuous operation we shall never be able to make very 
great advances beyond this limit. By that I do not mean 
that through improvements in details efficiencies in the 
neighborhood of say $0 per cent are completely out of the 
question. But in any case, the so-called second law of 
thermodynamics, which has now taken its place as a part 
of the core of established knowledge in physics, stands in 
the way of the realization of the dreams of the multitude 
of inventors and magicians who still want to transform the 
sun's heat rays directly and completely into work. Though 
the knowledge that it cannot be done is less than a hundred 
years old, it is about as firmly established as is the law of 

I have chosen the foregoing illustration because it lies 
at the very base of any correct analysis of what science has 
done and of what it is capable of doing in the future in 
bettering man's lot on earth. Let us look first at what it 
has done, for this will enable us to understand better 


what it can do. When in 1825 my grandfather loaded into 
a covered wagon his young wife, his Lares and Penates, and 
all his worldly goods, and trekked west from Stockbndge, 
Mass., first to the Western Reserve in Ohio, and again in 
1838 to the banks of the Rock River in western Illinois, 
the conditions of that migration, the motives prompting it, 
and mode of travel of the emigrants, their various ways of 
meeting their needs and solving their problems, their whole 
outlook upon life, were extraordinarily like those which ex- 
isted four thousand years earlier when Abraham trekked 
westward from Ur of the Chaldees. In a word, the changes 
that have occurred within the past hundred years not only 
in the external conditions under which the average man, at 
least in this western world, passes his life on earth, but in 
his superstitions, such as the taboo on the number thirteen 
or on Friday sailings (why, my own grandmother carried 
a dried potato in her pocket to keep off rheumatism) in 
his fundamental beliefs, in his philosophy, in his conception 
of religion, in his whole world outlook, are probably greater 
than those that occurred during the preceding four thousand 
years all put together. Life seems to remain static for 
thousands of years and then to shoot forward with amazing 
speed. The last century has been one of those periods of 
extraordinary change, the most amazing in human history. 
If, then, you ask me to put into one sentence the cause 
of that recent rapid and enormous change, I should reply, 
it is found m the discovery and utilization of the means by 
which heat energy can be made to do man's work for him. 
The key to the whole development is found in the use of 
power machines, and it is a most significant statistical fact 
that the standard of living in the various countries of the 
world follows closely the order in which so-called labor- 
saving devices have been most widely put into use. In 
other words, the average man has today more of goods and 
services to consume in about the proportion in which he has 
been able to produce more of goods and services through 
the aid of the power machines which have been put into 


his hands. In this country there is now expended aboi. 
13.5 horsepower hours per day per capita the equivalec 
of 100 human slaves for each of us; in England the figur 
is 6.7, in Germany 6.0, in France 45, in Japan 1.8, i 
Russia 0.9, in China 0.5. In the last analysis, this use o 
power is why our most important social changes have com 
about. This is why we no longer drive our ships wit 
human slaves chained to the oars as did the Romans an< 
the Greeks. This is why we no longer enslave whole people; 
as did the Pharoahs, for building our public structures, an< 
lash them to their tasks. This is why ten times as man 
boys and girls are in the high school today in the Unite 
States as were there in 1890 more than five million no\* 
half a million then. This is why we have now an eight 
hour day instead of, as then, a ten, a twelve or sometime 
a fourteen-hour day. This is why we have on the averag 
an automobile for every family in the country. This is wh 
the lowest class of male labor, i e., unskilled labor, get 
nearly twice as much in real wages in the United States a 
in England, three times as much as in Germany or France 
and thirteen times as much as in Russia, and this is wh 
the most abused class of labor in the world, domestic service 
is even better off relatively in this country though completel 
unorganized, i e., through the unhampered operation of ecc 
nomic laws, than is any other class of labor, skilled or un 

Do not think that these are the one-sided pronouncement 
merely of an enthusiastic scientist. Anyone can check therj 
who will begin to study them. Listen to President Kai 
Compton's formulation of the results of his similar historica 
studies. He says. 

"From the days of the cave man, all through history u] 
to the modern era of science, there were only two primitiv 
recipes for securing the materials desired for the mor 
abundant life. One was to work hard and long in order t< 


of life from some one else, by theft, conquest, taxation or 
produce more, and the other was to take the good things 

"To get the good things of life by taking them from 
others is a primitive instinct, undoubtedly developed by the 
age-old struggle for existence We have all seen monkeys, 
or sea gulls, or wolves, or pigs snatching food from each 
other, fighting to possess it, or shouldering each other away 
from the trough. When human beings carry this philosophy 
too far beyond the accepted standards, as did Jesse James and 
John Dillinger, we call them 'public enemies'. But this same 
philosophy of taking what we want from others, by violence 
and trickery, or by legalized strategy and force, has run all 
through human history. 

"But in recent times, modern science has developed to 
give mankind, for the first time in the history of the human 
race, a way of securing a more abundant life which does not 
simply consist in taking away from some one else. Science 
really creates wealth and opportunity where they did not exist 
before. Whereas the old order was based on competition, 
the new order of science makes possible, for the first time, 
a cooperative creative effort in which every one is the gainer 
and no one the loser. 

"For this reason, / believe that the advent of modern sci- 
ence is the most important social event in all history. It 
marks the point at which men have come to understand 
themselves and the world they live in well enough to begin 
systematically to control the hidden forces of nature to their 
advantage. Already science has done wonders to raise the 
standard of living and of knowledge, but these hidden forces 
are so great that we are assuredly only at the beginning of 
things possible. 

"Some significant facts regarding the effect of the ma- 
chine on the wages and employment of the worker are these: 
Counting 1840 as about the year in which power machinery 
came to be important in the United States, we find a steady 
increase since that date in the ratio of average wages to aver- 


age prices of commodities, so that it is now about seven times 
what it was in 1840. In other words, the average wage 
earner in America can today buy seven times as much with 
his wages as he could in 1840; or more than twice as much 
as he could in 1910. Also despite increasing population and 
increasing use of labor-saving machinery the percentage of 
our population gainfully employed increased 25 per cent be- 
tween 1870 and 1930. 

"More material progress has been made during the past 
one hundred and fifty years under the American system of 
free business enterprise than during all the preceding cen- 
turies in world history. This record of achievement is a chal- 
lenge to those who would radically change that system. . 
Under this system, the United States with a population of 
less than 7 per cent of the world's total controls about 40 
per cent of the wealth of the world One hundred years ago 
the average person had about 52 wants of which 16 were re- 
garded as necessities Today the wants number 484 on the 
average, of which 94 are looked upon as necessities." 2 8 

These facts, with their primary cause, are basic in ena- 
bling us to forecast the possibilities of improvement in the 
century that is ahead. They make it well nigh certain that 
we shall increase in economic well-being in the future just as 
we have in the past, in just the proportion in which we con- 
tinue to apply science and engineering to our industries and 
thus produce more and more m goods and services per man 
hour, thus freeing more and more men, more and more time, 
and more and more brains for education, for research, for 
art, and for all the other service industries There is a satura- 
tion point for automobiles and radios, but there is no such 
thing as saturation in education or the service industries gen- 

The foregoing figures demonstrate conclusively, I think, 
that the interests of labor and capital are one. For what is 
power? It is what the economist calls capital the tools and 

Social Implications of Scientific Discovery, published by the Ameri- 
can Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, March 15, 1938 

* T ?j s "f PaP of the quotation from Compton he in turn takes from 
a pamphlet distributed by the First National Bank of Boston. 


facilities with which we carry on our work. The idea of the 
Marxian class war is one of the most disastrous fallacies that 
ever got into human thinking disastrous to the working 
man, destroying today his wellbeing. 

Civilization consists in the multiplication and refinement 
of human wants. It is a simple historical fact that these 
wants have actually developed with great rapidity wherever 
and whenever labor-saving machines have been rapidly intro- 
duced. In 1900 some fifty per cent of our population was on, 
or supported immediately by, the farm, in 1930 not over 
twenty-five per cent. Without serious unemployment in that 
period the millions of displaced farmers found their way into 
garages, service stations, newly created secretarial jobs, news 
reporting, a newly created telephone service, advertising, in- 
surance, gardening, domestic service, and a thousand other 
service industries, and no serious or prolonged unemployment 
occurred until the enterprisers who normally create the new 
jobs began to be suppressed, legislated against and scared by 
unwise financial and political policies The faster science 
and engineering are applied to industry the faster we ought 
to progress. There is literally no other way of comparable 
effectiveness to raise the standard of living, and the chief 
element in its effectiveness is in getting more power into the 
hands of the laborer so that he can produce more for him- 
self, for in the last analysis the laborer taken a whole gets 
under almost any modern social system practically all that he 
produces. According to the United States Department of 
Commerce, in 1936 labor received directly 66.5 per cent of 
the national income. Indirectly, it received nearly all the 
rest of it since the idle rich represent an insignificant fraction 
of the population, and they pass on practically all that they 
receive to workers of some kind. 

My forecast of the future, then, must depend on what the 
future's sources of power are to be and on the cost of that 
power That is why I began with a consideration of the pos- 
sibility of getting more work out of a pound of coal. At 
present the main sources of power are coal and oil, with 


water playing a minor role and being in general more expen- 
sive. This situation will continue for a thousand years, for 
though the oil will perhaps be gone in fifty years, the coal 
will last for at least another millenium. The big steam plant 
is now nearly or quite as efficient as the best diesel motor, 
but for small power purposes, motor vehicles and the like, 
the internal combustion engine is and will continue to be in- 
dispensable. However, we already know how to make liquid 
fuel from coal, so that when the oil is gone we shall still be 
able to get liquid fuel for our internal combustion engines. 
There are, I think, no other possible sources of power of 
comparable cheapness When the oil and the coal are gone 
we shall get our power either directly from the sun through 
solar motors, or wind mills or tidal machines, or else indi- 
rectly through growing and burning plants; but it will then 
cost us more than it does now. So far as tapping the energy 
"locked up in the atoms" is concerned, in my opinion we 
can count that out We can of course do it now in principle 
through radioactivity, but I see no possibility fifty years from 
now of ever supplying the world's power needs, or even a 
minute portion of them, from any such source. 

For the foregoing reasons, then, fifty years from now 
the world will look to us, from the point of view of power, 
not so very different from what it looks now. Air travel 
will of course have increased, but the great bulk of the 
freight will go as now by surface vehicles or by steamships 
propelled in the essential particulars much as they are today. 
The art of communications, too, is already a pretty well 
perfected art, and though it may be considerably cheaper 
:han now, more messages being simultaneously carried over 
i given cable, so far as the techniques used are concerned 
[ do not expect any very radical or startling change. 

Among the natural sciences biology has the opportunity 
o do the big new things so far as their immediate effect 
Dn human living is concerned, and I have no doubt that in 
lie field of public health the control of disease, the cessa- 
ion of the continuous reproduction of the unfit, etc, big 


advances will be made, but here I am not a competent wit- 
ness, and I find on the whole those who are the most 
competent and informed the most conservative. 

The most burning and most uncertain situation about the 
future has to do with social and political matters, and it 
should be remembered that all the foregoing forecast was 
based on the assumption that our present civilization would 
not be destroyed by man's present or prospective interna- 
tional wickedness, stupidity, and folly. I know of no direct 
way in which science can prevent that, for I see no prospect 
of our ever being able to turn some new type of ray upon 
a dictator filled with the lust of power and conquest and 
thus transform him into a humanitarian. Indirectly, how- 
ever, the sciences of explosives and poison gases, of aero- 
dynamics, of communications with its corollary, the rapid 
spread of knowledge among the people, are doing the work. 
It was the fear of the bombing of London and Paris that 
prevented the beginning of another world war last Septem- 
ber. The peoples of all countries, including the dictatorships, 
are coming more and more to the reali2ation that such 
another war can bring only death and destruction to every- 
body the end of civilization, not the world domination 
which the demogogic leader promises. It is the rapid spread 
of knowledge by the effective methods that modern science 
has developed that gives good ground for hope that a world 
war will not come. The fact that the ultimate resources are 
in the democratic countries, as the science of geology has 
shown, something like three-fourths of the coal and the 
metals, the ultimate sources of power, being in these countries 
and that these countries can be and have already been roused 
to arm to defend themselves, that is the great influence that 
makes for continued peace in the world today and that gives 
promise that a permanent method of assuring peace may 
ultimately be worked out. But these countries must have 
the intelligence, the long range selfishness to see the hope- 
lessness, the folly at a time like this of a policy of division 
and isolation. They must obviously, it seems to me, join 


their powets in time to show the international bandits the 
hopelessness of their threatened spring at the throat of the 
world If they, including ourselves, will do this then I 
think there will be no war, and then I stand by my prognosis 
of a golden age ahead through the further growth of science 
and its application to the well-being of mankind, and par- 
ticularly through the further spread of understanding by the 
voting public that the interests of labor and capital are one 
and that the class war, like international war, is a terrible 
menace to human happiness and wellbeing. 




This address was given before the Thirty-fifth Annual Congress 
on Medical Education and Licensure, Chicago, February 13, 1939. 
The paper as read embodied much of the educational philosophy 
which the President of the University of Chicago had expounded on 
the platform and in print on several other occasions during the 
preceding twelve months (see for example, the address before the 
National Education Association, in the NEA Proceedings for 1938, 
p. 553-9). The views of President Hutchins continued to challenge 
the university and college world. In the address here included the 
statement, "I favor awarding the bachelor's degree in general edu- 
cation; I favor awarding it at about the end of the sophomore year," 
caused comment in the press. (See Representative American Speeches, 
1937-38, p. 184) 

Since you have two other college presidents on the pro- 
gram to tell you about college education it is obvious that 
you do not expect from any one of them the answer to your 
questions about it. You believe, like the rest of the world, 
that all presidents are liars, and you hope from a study of 
the differing lies of the three of us to discover the truth 
for yourselves. Speaking for myself, I find Mr. Conant's lies 
very persuasive, so much so that I shall drop out of this 
paper as I go along any lies of my own that are in conflict 
with his. 

I assume that we are all agreed on the purpose of general 
education and that we want to confine our discussion to its 
organization and subject matter. I believe that general educa- 
tion should be given as soon as possible, that is, as soon as 
the student has the tools and the maturity it requires. I think 
that the program I favor can be experienced with profit by 

1 Journal of the American Medical Association. 112-1657-700. April 29, 
1939. By permission of the American Medical Association, and through the 
courtesy of President Hutchins. 


juniors m High school. I therefore propose beginning general 
education at about the beginning of the junior year in high 
school. Since I abhor the credit system and wish to mark 
intellectual progress by examinations taken when the student 
is ready to take them, I shall have no difficulty in admitting 
younger students to the program if they are ready for it 
and excluding juniors if they are not. 

The course of study that I shall propose is rigorous and 
prolonged. I think, however, that the ordinary student can 
complete it in four years. By the ingenious device I have al- 
ready suggested I shall be able to graduate some students 
earlier and some later, depending on the ability and industry 
that they display. 

General education should, then, absorb the attention of 
students between the ages of 15 or 16 and 19 or 20 This 
is the case in every country of the world but ours. It is the 
case in some eight or nine places in the United States. Where 
the high school and the junior college are part of a large 
city school system, the organization has been successful. 
Where, as at the University of Chicago and Stephens College, 
the institution has either a small high school or none at all, 
the insignificant size of the first two years of the program and 
the large size of the last two create great difficulties. If you 
have seventy students entering the four year unit at the junior 
year in high school and 700 entering at the freshman year 
in college, it is absurd to talk about a coherent four year pro- 
gram. You must have a curriculum that the 700 can enter in 
the middle without being handicapped because they did not 
enter at the beginning. 

If in such institutions as my own the scheme I advo- 
cate is to succeed, we shall have to convince local parents, at 
least, that it is wise for them to send their children to us two 
years earlier than they have been accustomed to sending them. 
I think that if parents cannot be persuaded to do this the 
University of Chicago should abandon collegiate work alto- 
gether and give up its freshman and sophomore years. Those 
years at present are a foreign body in the otherwise admir- 
able constitution of the university. The students in them 


have different ambitions from those in the divisions above; 
the teachers have different ambitions, too But if ties can- 
not be found for these two years above they must be found 
below; for I do not beheve that two years at any level is 
long enough to provide an adequate education. It is suggest- 
ive that two year units do not exist anywhere else in the 
world; they are known only in the United States. 

I may mention at this point one aspect of the organization 
of general education which ought to be trivial but in this 
country is most important I favor awarding the bachelor's 
degree in recognition of general education; I favor awarding 
it at about the end of the sophomore year. This suggestion 
is not so startling as many people seem to think. President 
Butler of Columbia advocated it in his annual report for the 
year 1901-1902. In France the baccalaureat is used to indi- 
cate the satisfactory completion of general education. The 
reasons for giving it the same significance here are first that 
it now has no significance at all. The bachelor's degree 
means four years in college. As the president of Hiram has 
lately said, "To most college 'students' who sit long enough 
and patiently enough and docilely give back a modicum of 
the wisdom that has flowed past their ears, there will come 
in time the reward of their long-sitting, sheepskins to cover 
their intellectual nakedness. . . The usual requirements for 
graduation, f a minimum of 120 hours with additional credit 
for physical education/ may represent little more than hours 
of painful but patient sitting. Their blood relationship to 
achievement is so far removed as to make the claimed rela- 
tionship laughable/' 

But it is not only the credit system and the examination- 
by-the-teacher-who-taught-the-course system that make the 
B A. certify merely to four years of sitting. It is also and 
I think principally the fact that the standard four year college 
of liberal arts is and must be concerned with both general 
and specialized education. Even in some of the oldest and 
most conservative of these colleges you will find that the stu- 
dent may indulge in extreme specialization at an early stage. 


Yet the preparation with which students enter these colleges 
is such that the colleges must also give them a general educa- 
tion. These two aims can only confuse the colleges and 
hence confuse the significance of the degree that they offer. 

Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Chicago and several other 
places have attempted to meet this situation by dividing the 
first two years from the last two. Some institutions have 
even given them different staffs and administrations. Here 
we face again the problems raised by two year units. The 
first two years is not long enough for general education; the 
last two is not long enough for advanced study. The remedy 
would seem to be a four year unit beginning with the junior 
year in high school and leading to the bachelor's degree, and 
after that a three year unit beginning with the junior year in 
college and leading to the master's degree. The bachelor's 
degree would then indicate an adequate general education and 
the master's an adequate experience in advanced study. This 
master's degree should also indicate that the holder is quali- 
fied for a teaching position in which research is not expected 
or required. 

The last two years of the present college of liberal arts 
is left stranded when the college is divided into upper and 
lower divisions. We have found at Chicago that one of our 
more difficult problems is how to provide any intelligibile 
plan of advanced study in the junior and senior year. Some 
of our departments have succeeded in persuading students 
to plan their courses beginning with the junior year for 
three years to the master's degree. These departments have 
been able to effect notable improvments in both the general 
cultivation and the specific training of their graduates. I 
recommend the award of the bachelor's degree at the end of 
the period of general education, that is at about the end of the 
sophomore year, for the sake of advanced study as much 
as for the sake of general education. 

I may be objected that many students will not want to 
add a year to their program of advanced study. This in my 
view is an argument for the plan. The educational system 


will be compelled to accommodate the youth of the nation 
up to the end of the junior college, that is, to about 19 or 20. 
There is no reason why it should accommodate them after 
that. Beginning with the junior year, education should be 
limited to those who are able and willing to profit by it. We 
should rigorously select our students at the university level, by 
which I mean the beginning of the junior year. Since, there- 
fore, many students should terminate their education at the 
end of the sophomore year, one problem is how to induce 
them to do so. I think they will stay on and, through sheer 
importunity, get themselves a degree unless they can re- 
ceive some recognizable and popular insignia at the end of 
the sophomore year. The bachelor's degree is recognizable 
and popular. Since it serves no useful purpose at present, I 
believe it should be made to serve the very useful one of 
persuading students to get out of education who should not 
be permitted to remain in it. 

If general education is to be given between the beginning 
of the junior year in high school and the end of the sopho- 
more year in college and if the bachelor's degree is to signi- 
fy the competition of it, the next question is what is the 
subject matter that we should expect the student to master 
in this period to qualify for this degree? 

Now I do not hold that general education should be 
limited to the classics of Greece and Rome. I do not be- 
lieve that it is possible or desirable to insist that all stu- 
dents who should have a general education must study Greek 
and Latin. I do hold that tradition is important in educa- 
tion; that the primary purpose of education, indeed, is to 
help the student understand the intellectual tradition in 
which he lives I do not see how he can reach this under- 
standing unless he understands the great books of the 
western world, beginning with Homer and coming down 
to our own day. If anybody can suggest a better method 
of accomplishing the purpose, I shall gladly embrace him and 


Nor do I hold that the spirit, the philosophy, the tech- 
lology or the theology of the Middle Ages is important in 
general education. I have no desire to return to this period 
my more than I wish to revert to antiquity. Some books 
written in the Middle Ages seem to me of some consequence 
o mankind. Most Ph.D 's have never heard of them. I 
rhould like to have all students read some of them. More- 
>ver, medieval scholars did have one insight; they saw that 
n order to read books you had to know how to do it. They 
developed the technics of grammar, rhetoric and logic as 
nethods of reading, understanding and talking about things 
ntelligently and intelligibly I think it cannot be denied 
hat our students in the highest readies of the university are 
svofully deficient in all these abilities today. They can- 
lot read, write, speak or think I do not suggest that we 
>hould attempt to introduce the tnvium and quadrivium in- 
o the American college. I do say that we must try to do 
For our own students what the seven liberal arts did for 
he medieval youth. If the Middle Ages have any suggestions 
o make on this point, we should welcome them. We need 
ill the help we can get. 

I should like to remark in passing that in the Middle 
A.ges people went to universities at 13 or 14. They read 
X)oks and experienced disciplines that are regarded as far 
oo difficult for university professors today Most of the great 
Dooks of the western world were written for laymen. Many 
}f them were written for very young laymen. Nothing re- 
peals so clearly the indolence and inertia into which we have 
"alien as the steady decline in the number of these books 
ead in our schools and colleges and the steady elimination 
>f instruction in the disciplines through which they may be 
inderstood. And all this has gone on in the sacred name of 
iberalizing the curriculum. 

The curriculum I favor is not too difficult even for very 
>rdinary American students. It is difficult for the professors 
>ut not for the students And the younger the students axe 
he better they like the books, because they are not old enough 


to know that the books are too hard for them to read. Some- 
thing like the course of study I should favor is now in force 
at St. John's College, Maryland. There an unselected group 
of indifferently prepared students are studying these books 
with tremendous enthusiasm thirty-five hours a week. They 
read last fall ten dialogues of Plato and voted to have extra 
classes so that they might read and discuss the rest of them. 
In connection with the reading, they are going through a 
formidable course of instruction in grammar, rhetoric, logic 
and mathematics. 

The entire freshman class in Columbia is now reading 
and discussing twenty-five of the great books in philosophy 
and literature. I understand that Rushing Week at Columbia 
was a failure because the students were too interested in the 
reading to be interested in fraternities, that the books are the 
chief subject of discussion at all informal student gatherings, 
and that the only complaint comes from teachers in other 
courses who feel that their work is suffering from the ex- 
citement the books in the Humanities course arouse. For 
eight years and more I have taught these books to unselected 
pupils in our University High School and to freshmen, 
sophomores, juniors and seniors in college Not one of 
them has suggested that the books were too hard or that 
they were not worth reading. I can testify from this ex- 
perience, though not, of course, very scientifically, that stu- 
dents who can read anything thrive on these books and that 
the younger they are the more they thrive 

Those who think that this is a barren, arid program, 
remote from real life and devoid of contemporary interest 
have either never read the books or do not know how to 
teach. Or perhaps they have merely forgotten their youth. 
These books contain what the race regards as the permanent, 
abiding contributions its intellect and imagination have made. 
They deal with fundamental questions It is a mistake to 
suppose that young people are interested only in football, the 
dramatic association and the student newspaper. I think 
it could be proved that these activities have grown to their 


present overwhelming importance in proportion as the cur- 
riculum has been denatured. Students resort to the extra- 
curriculum because the curriculum is stupid. Young people 
are interested m fundamental questions They are interested 
in great minds and great works of art. They are, of course, 
interested in the bearing of these works on the problems 
of the world today. It is, therefore, impossible to keep out 
of the discussion, even if the teacher were so fossilised as to 
want to, the consideration of current events. But these events 
then take on meaning; the points of difference and the points 
of similarity between then and now can be presented. Think 
what a mine of references to what is now going on in the 
world is Plato's Republic or Mill's Essay on Liberty. If I 
had to prescribe an exclusive diet for young Americans, I 
should rather have them read books like these than gain their 
political, economic and social orientation by listening to the 
best radio commentators or absorbing the New York Times. 
Fortunately we do not have to make the choice; they can 
read the books and listen to the commentators and absorb 
the New York Times too. I repeat: these important agencies 
of instruction the radio and the newspaper and all other 
experiences of life, as a matter of fact take on intelligibility 
as the student comes to understand the tradition in which he 
lives. Though we have made great advances in technology, 
so that the steam turbine of last year may not be of much 
value in understanding the steam turbine of 1939, we must 
remember that the fundamental questions today are those with 
which the Greeks were concerned; and the reason is that 
human nature has not changed. The answers that the Greeks 
gave are still the answers with which we must begin if we 
hope to give the right answer today. The answers they gave 
have affected human history so profoundly that we cannot 
approach the issue of the purpose of the state, for example, 
without unconsciously reflecting their views We may apply 
to these early thinkers the words of Cardinal Newman about 
Aristotle: "Do not suppose, that in thus appealing to the 
ancients, I am throwing back the world two thousand years, 


and fettering philosophy with the reasonings of paganism. 
While the world lasts, will Aristotle's doctrine on these 
matters last, for he is the oracle of nature and of truth. 
While we are men, we cannot help, to a great extent, being 
Aristotelians, for the great Master does but analyze the 
thoughts, feelings, views, and opinions of human kind. He 
has told us the meaning of our own words and ideas, before 
we were born. In many subject-matters, to think correctly, 
is to think like Aristotle; and we are his disciples whether 
we will or no, though we may not know it." Do not sup- 
pose that in thus including the ancients in my course of 
study I am excluding the moderns. I do not need to make 
a case for the moderns. I do apparently need to remind you 
that the works of the ancients lie at the foundation of the 
tradition in which we live. 

Do not suppose, either, that because I have used as 
examples the great books in literature, philosophy and the 
social sciences I am ignoring natural science. The great works 
in natural science and the great experiments must be a part 
and an important part of general education. Here again I 
am not concerned with the method; I am concerned with 
the end. The student should understand the leading ideas 
in the natural sciences. Do you think he does today? On 
the contrary, what he gets today is either a superficial shower 
from a survey course or professional instruction from the first 
day of the freshman year, based apparently on the notion 
that every member of the class is going to be a chemical en- 
gineer. General education is not professional education. 
The curriculum must be designed to prepare the student for 
intelligent citizenship. The type of scientific instruction that 
I received in college has no place in the kind of college I am 
proposing. As for survey courses of the usual variety, they 
have no place there either. They degenerate too easily into 
a rapid tour of all the facts known in physics, chemistry and 
biology. The basis of the scientific program should be the 
great landmarks of scientific work, the books and the experi- 


Neither at Columbia nor at Chicago has anybody in- 
terested in the kind of curriculum I am suggesting had the 
facilities for the kind of scientific instruction we have wanted 
to give. At St. John's College those facilities are available 
and are now being used. It appears that between a half 
and a third of the course of study will be mathematics and 
natural science. In fact, St John's is the only college in 
the country in which every student must take laboratory 
science for four years. 

Another problem that has disturbed those who have dis- 
cussed this issue is what books I am going to select to cram 
down the throats of the young. The answer is that if any 
reasonably intelligent person will conscientiously try to list 
the hundred most important books that have ever been 
written I will accept his list. I feel safe in doing this 
because (a) the books would all be worth reading and 
(b) his list would be almost the same as mine There is, 
in fact, startling unanimity about what the good books are. 
The real question is whether they have any place m educa- 
tion. The suggestion that nobody knows what books to 
select is put forward as an alibi by those who have never 
read any that would be on anybody's list 

Only one criticism of this program has been made which 
has seemed to me on the level. That is that students who 
cannot learn through books will not be able to learn through 
the course of study that I propose This, of course, is true. 
It is what might be called a self-evident proposition. I 
suggest, however, that we employ this curriculum for students 
who can be taught to read and that we continue our efforts 
to discover methods of teaching the rest of the youthful 
population how to do it. The undisputed fact that some 
students cannot read any books should not prevent us from 
giving those who can read some the chance to read the best 
there are 

I could go on here indefinitely discussing the details of 
this program and the details of the attacks that have been 
made on it But these would be details. The real question 


is Which side are you on? If you believe that the aim of 
general education is to teach students to make money; if 
you believe that the educational system should mirror the 
chaos of the world; if you think that we have nothing to 
learn from the past; if you think that the way to prepare 
students for life is to put them through little fake experi- 
ences inside or outside the classroom; if you think that edu- 
cation is information; if you believe that the whims of 
children should determine what they should study, then I 
am afraid we can never agree. If, however, you believe that 
education should train students to think so that they may 
act intelligently when they face new situations; if you regard 
it as important for them to understand the tradition in 
which they live; if you feel that the present educational 
program leaves something to be desired because of its 
"progressivism," utilitarianism and diffusion; if you want 
to open up to the youth of America the treasures of the 
thought, imagination, and accomplishment of the past, then 
we can agree, for I shall gladly accept any course of study 
that will take us even a little way along this road 


President Cutten, of Colgate University, delivered this bacca- 
laureate address before his Colgate students on June 11, 1939- It is 
a typical speech for such occasions and was well adjusted in general 
conception and in details to his audience. President Cutten has 
been in wide demand as a speaker before both educational and busi- 
ness groups. His poliitcal philosophy was partly revealed in his 
Convocation Address, "Robbing the Unborn," given at Colgate on 
September 21, 1938 On this occasion President Cutten attacked the 
fiscal program of the present administration as one of "robbing 
the unborn." 

If we want to go anywhere we must start from where 
we are. Starting from where we wish we were never gets 
us where we want to be. Let us face facts about our present 
status, that is our springboard. Perhaps we can evaluate our 
present assets, in order better to plan our not too easy 
journey Many persons are too prone to excuse themselves 
today by assembling, before the mind's eye, all of their 
liabilities. We shall not find it necessary to do that our 
liabilities will press themselves forward in an endeavor to 
discourage us, we shall encourage ourselves by emphasizing 
our assets. 

Your most valuable asset is your youth. I know that 
youth teems with indiscretions and is side-tracked by inex- 
perience, but, after all, it has its irrepressible enthusiasms, 
its adventurous schemes, and its redundant vigor, assets which 
time alone can dull, and the passing of the decades alone 
can erase. If these can be properly harnessed and skillfully 
guided, the world and its rewards are dangling before you. 
Youth seems to claim that this is its day and that while old 
fogies might have been in the way in the past, they must 

1 By permission of the author. Text supplied through the courtesy of 
President Cutteo. 


step aside and permit triumphant youth to grasp the wheel. 
I wonder! Youth has accomplished much but its task is 
not yet finished. 

One of the greatest pieces of oratory ever delivered in 
English was spoken as long ago as 1741, when the first 
Earl of Chatham made his famous reply to Horatio Walpole. 
This belligerant passage began as follows: "Sir The 
atrocious crime of being a young man, which the honorable 
gentleman has, with such spirit and decency, charged upon 
me, I shall neither attempt to paliate nor deny, but content 
myself with wishing that I may be one of those whose 
follies may cease with my youth, and not of that number 
who are ignorant in spite of experience.' 1 

Pitt was thirty-two years old when he thrilled Parliament 
with these words. If this charge could be made against 
him at his age, what might have been said against his illus- 
trious son who entered Parliament at twenty-one, was 
chancellor of the Exchequer at twenty-three, and became 
prime minister of England at twenty-five. The astonishment 
and concern of some of the elders may be gathered from 
what actually was said when Pitt, the younger, became prime 

"A sight to make surrounding nations stare 
A kingdom trusted to a school boy's care." 

Notwithstanding some indiscretions, he has been called 
England's greatest prime minister. Earl Canning at twenty- 
eight was made under secretary of State for foreign affairs, 
and his father, George Canning, held the same office when 
twenty-six. Palmerston was secretary of State for war at 
twenty-five, a position he held for twenty years under six 
different prime ministers Gladstone entered Parliament at 
twenty-one, was first Junior Lord of the Treasury at twenty- 
three, and a month later became under secretary of State for 
the colonies, at thirty-one he was in the cabinet. 

Some other great youths have made history. Alexander 
the Great became king when a youth of twenty; at twenty- 


wo he gained his first great victory over the Persians; at 
wenty-three he again defeated them; at twenty-five, with 
ifty thousand soldiers, he overcame a Persian army of one 
nillion. Before his death at the age of thirty-two, he is 
aid to have wept because there were no more worlds to 
onquer. Napoleon commanded France's army of the in- 
erior at twenty-six, and at twenty-seven the army of Italy; 
it twenty-eight he conquered Austria, and at thirty he was 
uler of France Alexander Hamilton was a lieutenant- 
olonel on Washington's staff at twenty, father of the Con- 
;titution at thirty, and Secretary of the Treasury at thirty-two, 
fames Wolfe was a lieutenant-colonel at twenty-three, hero 
>f Louisburg at thirty-one, and conqueror of Quebec at 
hirty-two. Clive was described by Pitt as the youth of 
wenty-seven who has done the deeds of a heaven-born 
general. Marlborough was a French colonel at twenty-four 
md an English colonel at twenty-eight. The youngest colonel 
:>f the British Army during the Great War was Lieutenant- 
rolonel Enc McDonald of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, 
tfho commanded the 10th Alberta Battalion during the 
last year of the war, when twenty-five. 

Hyde became president of Bowdoin at twenty-seven, 
Frank P. Graves was president of the University of Wyoming 
it twenty-seven and of Washington at twenty-nine. Robert 
M. Hutchins was made secretary of Yale at twenty-four, 
iean of Yale Law School at twenty-eight, and president of 
he University of Chicago at thirty. At thirty-four, Mark 
Hopkins became president of Williams, and Clarence Little 
Df the University of Maine; at thirty-seven he was president 
3f Michigan. At thirty-five Eliot went to Harvard, White 
o Cornell, and Harper to Chicago. The famous Benjamin 
Silliman became a professor at Yale when only twenty-three. 

Among men of letters, Byron published his first volume 
Df poems at nineteen, and the first two cantos of Childe 
E-IaroId at twenty-four; Disraeli published Viviana Gray at 
-wenty-two, Dickens published Pickwick Papers at. twenty- 
four, and Shelley wrote Queen Mab at twenty-one. Noah 


Webster published his spelling-book, grammar and reading- 
book at twenty-five. John T. Delane was editor of the 
London Times when only twenty-three, and Edward W. Bok 
was editor of the Ladies Home Journal at twenty-six. 

In the field of invention youth has been eminent. George 
Washington invented the air brake when twenty-two, Luther 
Burbank produced the potato which bears his name when 
twenty-two. George Eastman produced dry plates at twenty- 
six, Alexander Bell invented the telephone when twenty- 
eight, Henry Ford produced his first motor car at twenty-nine. 
Thomas Edison invented the incandescent lamp when thirty- 
two, and the Wright brothers were thirty-two and thirty-six 
when they made their first flight. 

In business we have some early examples of genius. 
Rudolph Spreddes became president of the Hawaiian Com- 
mercial and Sugar Company at twenty-two, and put the 
plantation on a paying basis within a year. C. S. Woolworth 
established his first five and ten cent store when twenty-four. 
John D Rockefeller organized the Standard Oil Company 
when thirty-one, and at the same age John Wanamaker 
opened his department store. The more precocious financial 
genius of recent years has been S. Parker Gilbert, who 
became agent general for reparations payments at thirty-two. 

This list of eminent youth might be greatly prolonged, 
but we refrain. I am leaving it to you to add your own 
names. Waiting for age to sharpen the wits and develop 
the necessary maturity has ever been a procrastinator's fallacy 
The age in which you live is calling for your help now 
and presenting opportunities in number far in excess of any 
past age and you cannot ask it to wait. With all the ven- 
turesome enthusiasm which your youth provides, force your- 
selves into the strife, and contribute your strength to 
accomplish the marvels which your time not only demands, 
but sorely needs. 

There are two other assets which you possess which 
should be mentioned: these are ability and training. Being 
loyal Americans, and considering the Declaration of Inde- 


pendence as our birth certificate, we have always tried to 
conform to the pattern of equality. All persons were equal, 
to be sure, but some persons progressed more rapidly in 
school, or persevered longer in school, but we gave other 
reasons for these acts than those of inequality. They did 
not like school, or they wanted to go to work, or they 
needed the money, or they could not afford college, or they 
did not apply themselves; we were finally forced to the 
conclusion that the underlying reason was that they did not 
have the ability. 

While it seemed like the rankest heresy, we finally came 
to the conclusion that instead of all persons being equal, 
there were no two persons equal Then came the series 
of tests fostered by the exigencies of war, first those of 
general intelligence and later those measuring all kinds of 
abilities and aptitudes, stressing our dissimilarities and em- 
phasizing our differences. The biologist, who had long been 
trying to show us the effects of heredity and the results of 
mutations, was finally allowed to speak and to make his 
contribution; and the sociologist was also given a hearing 
and permitted to show the effects of social inheritance on 
the lives of men. Modern science and all forms of modern 
research have been driving us up and down the scale in- 
dicating our differences and inequalities. 

Of course, the point is that college students are a selected 
group, and that a college course is a definite form of in- 
telligence test. When a boy is accepted for college he is 
thereby assured that he is superior mentally to the majority 
of his fellows That does not mean that he is superior to 
all those who have not attended college, but it does mean 
that the majority of the people of this country could not, 
with an unlimited amount of training, pass college entrance 
examinations. The ability to stay in college shows not only 
further mental ability, but is a test of the possession of 
personality traits of a superior quality. 

But this superior ability is not all to develop this each 
one of you has devoted sixteen years to formal training in 


school and college. Probably more than two-thirds of your 
life up to the present time has been spent in school only 
a small proportion of the people of this country have had 
that advantage, so you are a doubly selected group. 

Fortunately, college has meant more to you than just so 
many studies, and the reading of certain assigned textbooks 
much more! There has been the privilege of fine friend- 
ships and fellowships, the test of living with and among 
your fellows, the team play in your games, the individual 
responsibility of your examinations, the sharpening of wits 
in your debating, the stimulus of inspiring lecturers, and 
the fine fellowship with your professors which the College 
Plan not only permits but encourages. It is difficult to 
imagine how more of solid training could be crowded into 
four years, with much of it being absorbed under most 
agreeable circumstances 

It may be nature's stern method, to permit you to know 
what particular experiences have harmed you in these years, 
rather than to be able to determine just what experiences 
have combined to change you from the callow youth of an 
entering freshman to the realization of manhood which you 
recognize in yourselves today. While your progress may 
defy analysis, your evaluation of yourself from year to year, 
or a comparative estimation of yourselves between now and 
your graduation from high school, surely shows what train- 
ing and natural development can accomplish. You leave 
these halls better endowed, better trained, and better prepared 
to meet life's vicissitudes that you have ever been before. 

Here you stand equipped with youth, ability, and train- 
ing Arise, let us go hence! Come on, let's go! But 
where? Where is hence? What aim have you for your- 
selves? Are we facing a time devoid of great causes? Are 
all the great things accomplished, and is the old world 
burned out? Is youth losing its adventurous spirit? Are 
young men of today lacking in ambition, Young men are 
heard talking about a job any job, but is that adequate? 


Is existence all there is to life in these days of the twentieth 
century? Are we defeated before we start ? 

You have your strong, well-developed bodies, straining 
with youthful vigor, but are you content simply to be ani- 
mals? These bodies have been nourished and exercised and 
kept healthy to be the servants of human minds. You have 
your well stored and carefully disciplined minds, capable of 
guiding these bodies and applying themselves to the problems 
of life, but are these problems to be purely personal prob- 
lems, and the intellectual satisfactions to be purely the solu- 
tion of personal puzzles ? These strengths of body and mind 
must be combined in an harmonious effort to attack and 
solve the vexing problem of a still higher nature in a 
larger world. Self is not big enough for your ambitions, 
and not grand enough for your aims. 

There are two questions which intrude themselves very 
obstinately at this point. In the first place we ask, Have 
not times changed so that the problems, which were so 
insistent upon solution centuries or decades ago, have either 
been solved, or are not longer of interest ? A century ago 
we could not escape them, but what are the great causes 
today? Might it not have been possible that from the view- 
point of one living in those remote days, the problems were 
no more apparent than they are to many of us today ? Did 
it not require the trained mind, the far seeing seer, or the 
practical genius to discover the problem in those days as 
well as to solve it? Looking back on history the problem 
did seem apparent, but did it then? 

The world has not changed much- it is still looking for 
the man to supply the minor premise That is the secret 
of progress. Everyone knows the general statement con- 
tained in the major premise, and everyone can draw the 
conclusion, but where is the genius to supply the minor 
premise. For example, everyone knew that matter is com- 
posed of small particles, but how much study and research 
and experiment was necessary and will continue to be neces- 
sary to discover that the small particles are electrons and 


protons and positons and neutrons and other mfinitesimally 
small bits which form this minute system? The minor 
premise is not complete yet, but we are working at it. You 
have learned thousands of general propositions which need 
solution, they are sticking their fingers in your eyes whichever 
way you look the world is asking each one of you, "What 
about the minor premise?" 

When life was simple, problems were simple, and solu- 
tions were correspondingly uncomplicated. But with the wide 
expansion of knowledge, and the ramifications of knowledge 
spreading into every problem and making it more intricate 
and entangled, the problem is less clear in its statement and 
less simple in its solution. Perhaps that is one reason why 
we do not recognize it more clearly as a problem. There 
never was a time in the history of the race when more 
problems are seeking solution and I believe there never was 
a time when there was a greater opportunity for the trained 
college man. You may point out the number of people on 
relief and in the number in C.C C. Camps, but that means 
only that these people are removed from competition. The 
college man with high ideals, a determination to contribute 
to his generation, trained judgment, and persevering industry 
is the demand of the hour. He is the man who can ad- 
minister to a sick world. 

There is a second question which naturally comes to you 
at this point You say, yes, there are problems and I want 
to help solve them, but I've already chosen my life's work; 
must I give this up? Not at all, not at all! Life's most 
important problems are solved within one's work rather than 
outside it. The great problems of life are spiritual prob- 
lems, and spiritual gifts are not confined to monasteries or 
pulpits. Did not the Saviour of the world work at a car- 
penter's bench? Suppose you say, "Well, I expect to be a 
physician, what about that?" If your object in becoming 
a physician is to make a living out of human suffering, 
you are bound to fail, regardless of how good a living you 
make. I wish I could get a glimpse of the book of the 


recording angel. I'd just like to get his unbiased opinion 
of the doctors. I may be wrong, but I believe those marked 
with A pluses would not be the great city doctors whose 
names we see in the headlines and who write learned articles 
in the scientific journals, but some unknown and unsung 
country doctor who has impressed his spiritual image upon 
a whole community No man gets so near to the people as 
the family doctor, and no one can be more helpful Have 
you been reading some of the books recently written by 
family doctors, such as, "The Horse and Buggy Doctor"? 
Have you read Lloyd Douglas* "Disputed Passage," then 
perhaps you know what I mean. If not, then read and 
reread Ian McLaren's, "The Doctor of the Old School," in 
"The Bonnie Briar Bush," and you cannot miss the point. 
There the age old problems were being solved inside of a 
profession and through its ministrations. 

Or perhaps you have decided to be a teacher, can you 
make this significant contribution inside this profession or 
must you give it up? Perhaps I could not do better at this 
point than to tell you a story. A few years ago there died 
in Lewiston, Maine, an old man who had been a professor 
at Bates College for many years. He was followed to his 
grave by professors, students, janitors, and townspeople un- 
numbered but all with tear-stained eyes. When a young 
instructor at Bates he was offered a professorship in a large 
and important university which, after consideration, he de- 
clined. Some of his friends expressed surprise at his action, 
especially since his salary was so small and the proffered 
salary was comparatively so large. He replied that after 
thinking it over he decided that he did not want to take 
all his pay in money. His reward was in his life's being 
lived over and over again in the lives of his students, and 
a few years ago the most important feature of one Com- 
mencement was the portrayal of his life and services by some 
of his former students as a memorial of their affection and 
esteem. Don't you catch what I mean? 


So I might continue. Are you going into law simply 
because it provides to you the easiest way to make the best 
living? Then you cannot solve the world's problems, you 
only increase them. Law presents many opportunities within 
itself to help when justice reaches above gain, and equity 
supercedes personal profit. Or perhaps you have chosen to 
be a preacher of the gospel? Preaching, as such, is terrifi- 
cally dull and deadening, but if a person instead of preaching 
has a message from God to deliver to his congregation, a 
message of help or comfort or inspiration, he then becomes 
the voice of Jehovah to a bewildered people It matters 
little what the profession or business may be if you can 
present to yourself a spiritual interpretation and recognize 
yourself as a high priest of that profession ministering to 
needy men in a needy world. Many men have started out 
with high ideals and lost them in the scramble, turning real 
success into apparent success and ending in a glorious failure. 
College men should be fired with the same glorious en- 
thusiasm for high ideals as possessed the saints and heroes 
of old. Adventure has not gone out of life and the heroes 
are not all dead. The world is still holding its crowns of 
olives before the young men; don't you see them, and can't 
you discover the paths which lead to them? Perhaps we 
need a new definition of the heroic but it is still there. 

I must not close without pointing to you a young man 
who lived in Galilee Life had not been easy for him. He 
had his ideals, high ideals, which were always being mis- 
understood and frustrated. He finally came to a place where 
he saw clearly that carrying out these ideals meant death. 
This was a situation which he could only meet alone, so 
he retired to a garden to fight his lonely battle. Everyone 
had those struggles should it be the easy way of failure 
or the hard road which one's ideals demand? He made 
his decision and joining his companions, said, "Arise, let us 
go hence/' Hence to him was death yes, death, but hidden 
in that was life, for he became the most famous, the most 
copied, the most beloved man who ever lived. I am not 


asking you to take your ideals unto death, but to follow 
them into life. Make them living, vibrating, compelling for 
yourself, and comforting, inspiring, and helpful to the 

Gentlemen of Colgate As you go out from Colgate 
tomorrow, you go deeply in debt You will be in debt to 
your parents who have sacrificed all the years of your lives, 
care and time and money, in order that you might be trained 
and prepared to live a life of usefulness and of worth; 
you will be in debt to this institution, to its administration, 
its professorial staff, its students who have been your com- 
panions; you will be in debt to the state for its share in 
your sixteen years of educational training This combined 
debt will be heavy. I have no doubt but that you have 
failed to accomplish all which you wished and may feel that 
you are not competent to repay these debts, and probably 
that is true. All the balance of this debt may well be for- 
given if you will repay one part: the tenacious holding and 
strenuous effort to fulfil your highest ideals; parents, college, 
and state must look to you for this payment, the greatest 
contribution you can return to all three. Your parents, I 
am sure, will accept this in lieu of all they have done, your 
college will forgive a few lapses in science or classics, and 
your state will not murmur if you repay in this coin, for 
high ideals are the need of this day and the choicest specie 
in the world's treasury Go forward then, with your feet 
on the ground, but with your heads in the rarified atmos- 
phere of your highest ideals in order that you may walk 
the golden path which leads to real victory and success. 




Reverend Harry Emerson Fosdick, of the Riverside Church, New 
York City, delivered this sermon before his congregation on Sunday 
morning, February 19, 1939. The present example is to be studied 
as a sermon. Its theme, homiletical organization, Biblical background 
and references, oral style, instances of audience adaptation and close 
reflection of the contemporary world situation, are among the elements 
to be noted 

John D. Rockefeller, Jr , was so impressed by the sermon that 
he had 50,000 copies of it distributed among legislators, educators, 
and business men In distributing the sermons, to which he gave 
the title "Dare We Break the Vicious Cycle of Fighting Evil with 
EviP'*, he wrote "This sermon is one of the most interesting utter- 
ances in connection with the drift of the world toward a great 
conflagration that has come to my attention.'* Time, July 3, 1939, 
calls Dr Fosdick "the most influential preacher in the United States." 

For some of us it is easier to believe in the Christian 
theology than in the Christian ethic. A generation ago many 
were saying- We cannot believe your Christian ideas of God 
but the ethical principles of Jesus are the hope of the world. 
Today, however, it is the ethical principles of Jesus that are 
difficult. By the Christian ethic I mean no mere ordinary, 
humane decency, loving those who love us, but rather the 
radical, sometimes incredible, demands of Jesus that we love 
our enemies, that if smitten on one cheek we tarn the other 
also or if compelled to go one mile we go two instead, that 
we do good to those who hate us and pray for those who 
despitefully use us and persecute us. There is the rub today. 

The reason for this is the extraordinary vividness with 
which a powerful temptation assails us all, the temptation 
to resist evil with evil. When on the Western prairies a 

1 Reprinted by permission of the author. Text furnished through the 
courtesy of Dr. Fosdick. 


conflagration starts, men fight fire with fire, burning a swath 
across which the advancing flames cannot leap. What is 
thus well done in the physical world we are continually 
tempted to do in the moral world. We fight evil with evil 

In war, if one side uses poison gas, the other side may 
at first be horrified, but in the end we all succumb. It takes 
poison gas to fight poison gas If one side uses conscription, 
which is of the essence of dictatorship, the other side, being 
a democracy, at first is shocked, but in the end copies the 
technique of the enemy It takes conscription to fight con- 
scription In personal relationships we are habitually 
tempted to meet bad temper with bad temper, resentment 
with resentment, sometimes chicanery with chicanery, and in 
all this we are morally sustained because we think we are re- 
sisting evil as, indeed, we are, but with evil At that cru- 
cial point Jesus parts company with us It is there that his 
revolutionary ethic begins 

Listen to him: "How can Satan cast out Satan ? " Hidden 
away in the third chapter of Mark's Gospel that searching 
question stands, summing up, I think, the essential meaning 
of Jesus' way of life "How can Satan cast out Satan?" 
How can evil be the cure of evil? How can two wrongs 
make a right? No question could be more pertinent to our 
modern world, where today violence rises on every side, ill 
will is rampant, aggressive iniquities must be resisted by 
good men, and the temptation to fight evil with evil is al- 
most irresistible. Nevertheless, the question of Jesus haunts 
the Christian conscience and in quiet moments of insight re- 
veals a strange, uncanny common sense How can Satan cast 
out Satan? 

In the first place, how can the vicious circle of evil an- 
swered by more evil, answered by more evil, answered by 
more evil still, ever be broken unless, somewhere, some one 
refuses to go on with it? Watch this vicious cycle of wrong 
answering wrong. Iniquity rises, demanding that we fight 
back So, following the pattern of the natural ethic, against 
which Jesus took his revolutionary stand, we fight bitterness 


with bitterness, hatred with hatred, violence with violence, 
evil growing in a mounting crescendo as wrong answers 
wrong. This process is afoot everywhere, from international 
relationships, where they bomb our cities and kill our women 
and children and so we bomb their cities and kill them, to 
personal relationships, where we say, He has been unjust 
I will show him, I will pay the devil in his own coin. 

In this regard how like we human beings are to dogs! 
For one dog barks and the other barks back and the first 
barks more loudly and the second becomes more noisy still, 
in a mounting crescendo of hostility. So one man excused 
his terrier to the exasperated owner of another. "After all," 
he said, "the dog is only human." 

From the time, as children, we fell into angry name-call- 
ing, each trying to lay his tongue to some more stinging 
epithet, we all have faced this elemental problem, and now 
that, more mature, we are more dignified, our resentment tak- 
ing a colder form but remaining still resentment quite unre- 
deemed, who does not know that vicious circle of bitterness 
answered by bitterness, answered by bitterness again? It is 
the tragedy of the world! 

Shakespeare dramatized this in Romeo and Juliet, which, 
far from being a drama of romantic love alone, is first of all 
a play about a feud the house of Capulet against the house 
of Montague. The first and last words of the play concern 
the feud, one house against the other, hating each other, 
meeting violence with violence, evil growing by what it feeds 
upon and two wrongs never coming out right. Remember 
Mercutio, slain in the duel and in the insight of his dying 
moment crying, "A plague o' both your houses!" In the 
theater one sees people go out before the final scene as 
though, the love poetry being over, they thought the play 
was done. Shakespeare would have disliked that. It is the 
final scene, the climax of the play that he was driving at, 
where Capulet and Montague stand ashamed and penitent, 
their long and bitter feud stopped in midcourse by a love 
that broke the vicious circle of its hate. In that final moment 


of the play, when a Christian might kneel as before the mys- 
tery of the cross, Capulet says, "O brother Montague, give 
me thy hand." 

So Shakespeare after his own fashion dramatized what 
the Christian ethic would say, that the world's feud can never 
end and the vicious circle of wrong answering wrong come 
to a close until, somewhere, somebody refuses to go on with 
it. Jesus meant this by his homely saying that if a man is 
smitten on one cheek he should not smite back, starting thus 
an endless chain of retaliation. Let him try a new technique! 
Better, he would say, that one adventure on a revolutionary 
ethic and, if two blows must be given, take both rather than 
give one. Let him see if he cannot thus break the endless 
sequence of fighting evil with evil, whereby we always be- 
come the evil that we fight. 

This, of course, is what the pacifists at their best are driv- 
ing at with reference to war. The most shameful aspect of 
our present international situation, I think, is the way we ape 
the enemies we hate The dictatorships say, War 1 so we say, 
War 1 They build vast armaments, so we build vast arma- 
ments Step by step, day by day, we become their yes-men. 
They say, Dictatorial control of the nation for the sake of 
war's efficiency! So in Washington we propose bills that 
provide on the day of war's declaration that the nation shall 
conscript life, property, labor, conscience The dictatorships 
say, Let the War Department determine the foreign policy! 
So we, too, against the tradition of our people and the very 
words of our Constitution, say the same thing, and in Wash- 
ington witness the proposition for the fortification of Guam 
not so much the civilian representatives of the people as 
the army and the navy begin to initiate, and so ultimately to 
predetermine, our foreign policy. What apes we are 1 We 
copy those we hate We fight evil with evil and become the 
evil that we fight We will conquer them, we say, and so 
first of all we let them make us in their image. All this we 
do, thinking Jesus to be a visionary idealist. He is not. His 
ethic shows a more realistic insight into what is going on in 


this modern world than does our boasted hard-headedness. 
Despite their governments, the people of all the nations in 
their hearts and homes want peace. Somewhere, sometime, 
millions of men and women must stand up and cry. We're 
through; we will not go on forever with war causing more 
war, causing more war, causing more war still. 

If some one says, But we may be compelled to go to war! 
I ask only that the meaning of that be realistically faced. 
For in the war you say America is compelled to enter, every 
cruelty that human beings, implemented with unprecedented 
instruments, can inflict on human beings will be inflicted. 
In that terrific wrestling bout no holds will be barred. The 
word "sacred" will be dropped from the human vocabulary, 
and neither child nor woman, home, church, school, honor, 
nor plighted faith will be respected. If we are the apes of 
our enemies in peace time, in war time we will be apes in- 
deed. Every cruelty they devise we will match. Every dev- 
astation they inflict on human beings we will equal. In the 
end no barbarity will be beneath us. The boys we bore in 
travail and reared in love in our homes, schools, and 
churches will become the yes-men of the enemies we fight, 
in every dastardly deed they do They will be compelled to. 
And when it is over, in a world where all agree that no one 
can really win a war, with civilization, it may be, wrecked, 
with a thousand new problems raised for every one solved 
and countless hatreds engendered for every one satisfied, I 
can think of only one factor that still will stand quite unim- 
paired: namely, the strange man of Galilee whom many call 
a visionary idealist still asking with infinite sorrow, "How 
can Satan cast out Satan?" 

Let us take a further step and note that whether or not 
this principle of Jesus that evil is not to be fought with evil 
appeals to us, depends primarily on what it is that most of 
all we want. Do we really want to cast out Satan? Do we 
most of all desire to get rid of the evil of the world ? Multi- 
tudes of people want something else altogether their own 
prestige, personal or national, their gain and profit, their 


vengeance even or their private conquest. Of course, to such 
Jesus' ethic is preposterous. We cannot see his meaning 
truly any more than we can see the windows of a Gothic 
cathedral until we go inside, and from within his life under- 
stand what most of all he wanted. Above all else he wanted 
to rid the world of its evil. Whatever it cost, whether it 
brought him to the cross or no, somehow to rid the world 
of its evil was his passionate desire. If that is what a man 
wants, then evil is not an instrument to use It is only in 
the light of this supreme aim and motive of Jesus that one 
can see his ethical principles as reasonable. If one wants 
most of all to cast out Satan, then an alliance with Satan is 
no means to that end. 

Translate this into personal life and its truth is clear. A 
man does a wrong to us; what do we want? It may be that 
our first impetuous desire turns to vindictiveness an eye for 
an eye and a tooth for a tooth. So one man I know of had 
an enemy For years financially he laid for him until he got 
him, sold him out, lock, stock and barrel, house and furni- 
ture, and, with a satisfaction which only the vindictive know, 
cried, "My God! but that's conquering!" If a man wants 
that, then Jesus' ethic is preposterous. 

When, however, a man did Jesus a wrong, Jesus felt con- 
cern for the man. There are different ways in which one 
can intimate the presence of need and none more unmistak- 
able than to be unfair, unjust, ungenerous. When a man 
does a wrong it is as though he flew unwittingly a flag of 
distress and uttered a cry for help. Evil-doing may be vari- 
ously interpreted. It may cry to us, Revenge! It may say, 
Ignore me! It may say, S.O.S.; there is a need to be met, 
a deep want in this man's life, an evil that by goodwill, per- 
chance, you may help to cure. So, when the Samaritan vil- 
lagers used Jesus despitefully, he was sorry for the villagers. 
When Judas betrayed him, he was heartbroken because he 
could not help Judas. It was the wrong-heartedness itself he 
wanted to get rid of, the unkindness and bitterness he wished 
to banish from the earth. When one takes the measure of 


this supreme motive, Jesus' ethic becomes not preposterous 
but inevitable. Satan cannot cast out Satan. 

If some one says that this ethic is risky, that it is bound 
to cost sacrifice and when used on some people is sure to fail, 
I answer, Of course it is During the last blizzard, we are 
told, a woman living on a branch of the Ohio saw a poor 
dog drifting on the ice-floes and, touched with pity, ran to 
the stream, with difficulty launched her boat, fought for two 
hours before she reached the dog and brought him safely 
back. Then he bit her and she died of rabies. There are 
human curs like that. Of all men in history, do you think 
Jesus did not know it? But he would say, I think, Take it 
any way you will, human life is risky; you cannot avoid risk 
in life, and the salvation of the world depends on men and 
women who will take this risk, to face ill will with goodwill, 
to try to break the vicious circle of evil's sequence, where 
wrong answers wrong, and when two blows must be given 
to take both rather than give one. 

If we say, In certain personal relationships this ethic can 
be made to work and it was only of these individual relation- 
ships that Jesus was thinking, I suspect that shows how little 
we know about Jesus' world. He was not tucked off in a 
forgotten corner of the earth. He lived on one of the major 
highways of the Roman Empire. Every breath of news, I 
suspect, from the Thames to the Euphrates soon or late came 
to Nazareth. He lived in a violent generation when force 
ruled the world and might made right as terribly as it does 
today. He lived in a nation seething with violent revolt. 
He dealt not only with Saduccees, compromising with Rome; 
not only with Pharisees, waiting for their supernatural Mes- 
siah to come from heaven and redeem them, but with 
Zealots, fiery, militant, revolutionary rebels, crying out for 
bloodshed to make right their heinous wrongs. This public 
situation, so dreadfully like ours, Jesus had in mind when 
he turned his back on revenge and bloodshed and based his 
ministry on undiscourageable goodwill. 


It was this public situation he faced in the temptation at 
the beginning of his ministry, when the devil, as it were, 
showed him all the kingdoms of the earth and said, "All 
these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and wor- 
ship me." How perennial a temptation that is! How ter- 
ribly it assails us all today! To join forces with the devil 
to beat the devil, to fight evil with evil ah, Christ, how did 
you resist the pressure of it in your time and how in a world 
like this do you expect us to follow you? 

Yet when in calmer moments one faces the facts, one 
wonders if he is not right. Satan cannot cast out Satan. All 
history is a running commentary on that. The means deter- 
mine the end. Everlastingly that is true the means deter- 
mine the end. We of all generations should understand that 
Did we not fight a war to make the world safe for democ- 
racy? We were resisting evil. We prided ourselves on that. 
We were morally indignant against a real wrong and sacrifi- 
cially devoted to a holy cause. We would make the world 
safe for democracy. Conscription to make the world safe for 
democracy! Poison gas, bombing of open cities, blockades 
that starved millions, to make the world safe for democracy! 
Dictatorial control of the whole nation's life even of what 
we ate and wore the very suspension of the Bill of Rights, 
to make the world safe for democracy! And in the end a 
treaty, the only kind of treaty modern war can issue in 
vengeful, selfish, cruel to make the world safe for democ- 
racy! So we woke up to find the world less safe for democ- 
racy than it had been in generations. We discovered that 
war, being essentially totalitarian and dictatorial, cannot de- 
fend democracy, but that the means determine the end. Ah, 
Christ, you are not a visionary idealist; you are the sanest 
realist of us all. Satan cannot cast out Satan. 

Let us take a further step and note the positive power of 
this ethic when it is put to work. For it is not weak, as the 
average man thinks, but very strong. Of all ridiculous beati- 
tudes, some would say, the most incredible is the one where 


Jesus sums this ethic up and the faith on which it is built: 
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." 
What nonsense! says the average man. Yet would you stake 
your credit upon the opposite? Blessed are the Hitlers for 
they shall inherit the earth! Would you? Grant him every 
temporary victory you think possible. Would you say that 
in the long run he will inherit the earth? I know no intelli- 
gent person who thinks that. All history rises up against 
that. Like children's sand houses built upon the shore, age 
after age the tides of destiny have risen and wiped out the 
empires built on force. Of all contrasts in history none could 
be more disproportionate than that between the Roman Em- 
pire on one side and Calvary's cross upon the other. Yet 
the Roman Empire has fallen and many another empire since, 
like children's blocks toppling in a row, but still that cross 
stands and haunts the conscience of the world. So I think 
Jesus sat many a day upon the hills above Nazareth and 
looked across the plain of Esdraelon, stretching mile after 
mile before his gaze. There the historic battles of the world 
had been fought There the empires of the Euphrates and 
the Nile had clashed. Age after age violence had met vio- 
lence and kings and pharaohs had fallen in futility, and 
Satan had never cast out Satan yet. It was from that vision, 
not first of an ideal but of the facts, that Jesus went out, I 
think, determined, though he died for it, to introduce into 
the world a new and revolutionary ethic meet ill will with 
goodwill, dare to break the vicious circle of evil answering 
evil, never fight wrong with wrong. Satan cannot cast out 

This does not mean that all use of force is satanic. Coer- 
cion has its proper place in life, always indicating a patho- 
logical condition but capable of salutary use in the interests 
of the whole community, as, for example, against the insane 
or the criminal. Even in such realms, however, the Christian 
ethic has been so far influential that not retaliation but cure 
and reformation have become the test and aim of intelligent 
procedure. Because one believes in municipal police one is 


not by any logic driven, as some seem to suppose, to believe 
in war. War is a highly specialized form of force, in its 
preparations, procedures and results distinguishable from any 
other of force's exhibitions. One may believe in the police 
and think dueling wrong; one may grant the salutary nature 
of coercion communally applied for the good of all and still 
think gladiatorial shows are unmitigated and outmoded evil. 
So one may pray and work for an ultimate international com- 
munity, in which the collective security of all is the aim of 
all, and the policing of the world is the joint affair of all, 
and may still see clearly that at the present moment no war 
will mean that or anything aimed in that direction, but will 
be the old satanic, retaliatory process, motived by imperial- 
istic ambitions and waged with sadistic savagery to an end 
catastrophically evil. War is satanic and only Satan has any- 
thing to gain from it. 

However some may doubt the possibility of applying this 
principle to public affairs, how can one doubt its magisterial 
power in personal relationships ? I would almost venture to 
say that any special fineness of spirit that anybody here pos- 
sesses is his because sometime he has lived at the receiving 
end of this ethical principle. For there are three kinds of 
goodness in the world First, coerced goodness, where some 
one is good to us because we can require it That is not im- 
pressive Then there is deserved goodness, where we have 
been good to some one and now, quid pro quo, so much for 
so much, he is good to us. That is not deeply impressive. 
Then there is undeserved goodness, where we have been un- 
worthy, ungenerous, unkind, unjust, and, lo f some one comes 
back at us with goodwill and friendliness From the days at 
home when our parents so treated us, through all our Lives, 
no force has reached so deep, laid hold so hard, lifted so 
powerfully as that Thank God not everybody has slapped 
back at us! Thank God some people did go the second mile 
with us ! The salvation of the world depends on the multi- 
plication of people who understand and practise that adven- 
turous ethic. 


Do not represent me as having said that it is simple to 
apply this principle to the world's large affairs. It is des- 
perately difficult No one of us is wise enough to see around 
the next corner. Only as Americans this seems clear, that we 
are at the fork of the road and that either we are going to 
throw the vast influence of this nation on the side of those 
constructive forces that make for international goodwill and 
conference instead of violence or else we are in for an era 
dominated by our aping of our enemies. They make war! 
We make war! They build vast armaments! We build vast 
armaments 1 They use poison gas! We use poison gas! 
They say, All restrictions off on the most brutal instincts of 
mankind! We say the same, until once more, fighting evil 
with evil until we are the evil that we fight, far from con- 
quering our enemies we let them make us after their own 
image. So at long last, at the end of a ruinous era, we shall 
be facing again the question which God grant us grace to 
face now before it is too late "How can Satan cast out 
Satan ?" 



Reverend Charles W. Gilkey delivered this sermon at the regular 
Sunday morning service at the Riverside Church, New York, on 
Sunday, November 27th, 1938. He also gave it as a baccalaureate 
address in the chapel at the University of Chicago, and elsewhere. 

Reverend Gilkey has been Professor of Preaching at the Uni- 
versity of Chicago Divinity School since 1916, Dean of the University 
Chapel since 1928, and more recently, Associate Dean of the Divinity 

The George Washington Bridge across the Hudson river 
from upper Manhattan Island to the New Jersey shore was 
until 1937 the longest single suspension bridge-span ever 
built But its leap of 3,500 feet across the Hudson has now 
been surpassed by the 4,200-foot span of the bridge at San 
Francisco across the Golden Gate Forty-two hundred feet 
is practically four-fifths of a mile. When the Brooklyn 
Bridge across the East river was completed fifty-five years 
ago, its span of 1,600 feet was one of the wonders of the 
nineteenth century and rightly so But within the last fifty 
years two factors have combined to make it possible to in- 
crease by more than two and a half times the length of a sus- 
pension bridge across open water. One of these is, of course, 
the greater exactness and confidence of the engineering that 
plans the bridge. The other, of which we think more espe- 
cially today, is the improvement in the quality of the mate- 
rials available for its construction. 

A friend in Minneapolis who first aroused my own inter- 
est in these matters some months ago told me that he under- 
stood that if the George Washington Bridge had been built 
of the old ordinary steel that was the only kind available 

1 Reprinted from the Christian Century Pulpit. 10 no 6.132-6 June 
1939. Text furnished through the courtesy of Dr Gilkey. 


when the Brooklyn Bridge was built, it might have collapsed 
by its own weight before any traffic crossed it. This seemed 
to me so surprising a statement that I asked a neighbor of 
mine who makes steel what he thought about it. His answer 
was that, not being an engineer, he could not say as to the 
possible collapse of the new bridges had they been made of 
the old steel; but he did know that the new alloy steels were 
at least twice as strong as the old ordinary steel, and that this 
had been a large factor m making possible the lengthening 
of bridges without sacrificing their carrying power. He sug- 
gested that I check the matter with the steel company which 
in its third generation still bears the name of the engineer 
who designed the Brooklyn Bridge, whose successors have 
made the steel and spun the cables for most of the great sus- 
pension bridges on the American continent ever since 

Their Chicago representative sent me an elaborate table 
giving the comparative statistics of the Brooklyn, the George 
Washington and the Golden Gate bridges. In answer to my 
question, he said he thought the suggestion that the new 
bridges might have collapsed had they been made of the old 
steel was doubtless an exaggeration; but he added that there 
could be no question that the development of the new high 
tensile alloy steels, lighter in weight, smaller in bulk, but 
stronger in carrying power, had been a main factor in mak- 
ing it possible to bridge the Hudson river and the Golden 

A visitor to New York can see the truth of this for him- 
self if he takes the time first to walk across the Brooklyn 
Bridge, and notes that what is massive there is the two 
granite towers and the four huge cables which they swing 
across the East river. If then he visits the George Washing- 
ton Bridge, he sees at once that what is massive there is the 
anchorage of the bridge to the solid rock on either side, at 
the heart of Manhattan Island and at the foundations of the 
New Jersey Palisades. In sharp contrast, the towers which 
soar more than 600 feet above the Hudson on either bank 
are made of skeleton steel; and the cables which they swing 


200 feet above the river and 3,500 feet across seem, rela- 
tively to the height of the towers and the length of the 
bridge, almost as slender as a spider's web. Lighter but 

Now we did not have to have these new bridges across 
the Hudson river and the Golden Gate For three centuries 
the original Dutch settlers and their successors on Manhattan 
Island made their way across the Hudson by other means 
For more than a hundred years white men and red men 
crossed the Golden Gate in boats. Of course, it is very con- 
venient to step into a motor car and whisk in a couple of 
minutes across a body of water that only yesterday required 
fifteen to thirty minutes for its crossing; but our civilization 
would have endured and prospered without these newer 
bridges. Convenient as they are, they are not essential to out 
human future. 

In our post-war human world, however, the gaps and 
gulfs between different nations and races and classes of men 
have before our anxious eyes been widening as if by a suc- 
cession of social earthquakes. Our generation stands on the 
edge of these gulfs with the uneasy realization that unless we 
can bridge them, the future of our civilization is precarious 
The gaps that divide nation from nation and race from race 
have within our lifetime been widened and deepened by pre- 
judice, suspicion and fear. Within our own country different 
sections and groups, and what even in America we begin 
ominously to call classes, find it more difficult to understand 
one another. The critical issue for our civilization has be- 
come the social and spiritual question whether we can bridge 
these widening human gulfs 

A second spiritual problem that has become almost as 
urgent within our own lifetime is the question whether we 
can as individuals carry the increasing load of life in a time 
of insecurity and uncertainty. One of the outstanding bridge 
designers of his generation tells his friends that he has spent 
the second half of his professional career reconstructing the 
bridges which he himself designed during its first half. The 


reason for this is that the strains upon these earlier bridges 
have been greatly increased. Locomotives are heavier than 
they used to be, and trains longer Automobiles may not 
weigh as much individually, but there are many more of 
them; and trucks have greatly increased both in number and 
in weight Most of us have discovered in our own personal 
experience of late, the spiritual analogue to this engineering 
problem. The burden of life has been greatly increased for 
us during these last ten years of uncertainty and insecurity. 
All around us neighbors who for whatever reason have not 
"got what it takes" to carry the increasing load of life in such 
a time, crack up in physical or nervous breakdown, or let 
themselves and those dependent on them down. It is not 
only the social problems of our troubled time that create its 
anxieties* it is the heavier burden of life itself. 

And bridges do go down. Within the memory of many 
of us, the first attempt to bridge the St. Lawrence at Quebec 
collapsed into the river before it was finished. A few weeks 
ago at the University of Virginia I talked with a member of 
the faculty who with his own eyes saw that bridge go down 
When I asked him whether the defect lay in bad design or 
bad materials, he said that both had contributed to the dis- 
aster. Since my friend in Minneapolis first got me interested 
in suspension bridges and the new steels, the bridge over the 
Niagara river, from which for forty years thousands of 
honeymooning couples have had their best view of Niagara 
Falls, went down in February 1938, under the pounding of 
ice cakes at its foundations, and it lies today a twisted mass 
of rusty wreckage at the bottom of the gorge. Is that to be 
the fate of our boasted civilization? Will spectators on the 
edge of the gorge of history centuries hence, pointing back 
to the remnants of our social structure, say of us that in spite 
of the science and education, the democracy and progress of 
which we have been so proud, our early twentieth century 
lacked something that proved essential for the bridging of 
our social divisions and the maintenance of our interdepend- 
ent life? 


I do not know the answer to that question. I suspect that 
no living person knows it. The point of this sermon is 
simply that if as individuals and as a generation we are to 
meet these two critical problems of our time, we must follow 
the example set us by the engineers who have bridged the 
Hudson river and the Golden Gate. We must produce a 
quality of life like these new steels: lighter in weight, smaller 
in bulk, but stronger in carrying power. 


We need this, first, in our democracy. A century and 
more ago Thomas Jefferson declared that American democ- 
racy would survive and prosper just so long as America was 
a country of small farmers, each owning and operating his 
own farm But within a hundred years social forces stronger 
than his foresight or our control have carried us as a nation 
out from that prairie land of quarter-sections which seemed 
to him the native soil of democracy, into this hill country, so 
like the mountains of Kentucky and Tennessee, wherein our 
modern life is set. Here are deep and widening divides be- 
tween groups and classes, sections and races, to be bridged; 
and floods every now and then which threaten to sweep our 
present bridges away. Can our democracy build these indis- 
pensable bridges long enough and strong enough to span the 
gulfs and carry the loads of our stormy time? 

Our own generation has awakened within the last few 
years to a new sense of its trusteeship for the democracy 
which our fathers entrusted to us. Finding democracy sud- 
denly under world-wide challenge and strain as it has never 
been before within our lifetime, we are easily tempted to 
think that the simple reinforcement of the old structure by 
new laws and agencies and gadgets will secure democracy 
against breakdown. The fate of the bridges at Quebec and 
Niagara may help us to realize that the mere addition of 
masses of new legislation at Washington and Springfield, 
and successive inquisitions into the patriotism of our neigh- 


bors, will hardly suffice for such a time. Overbuilt bridges 
break down of their own weight if they are not radically re- 
constructed to carry their new loads, and built out of im- 
proved materials like the new steels. 

Democracy in America during the next generation will 
sorely need a new quality of understanding and devotion on 
the part of the generation to which this graduating class be- 
longs; an attitude and a spirit, particularly in all relations 
with races and groups and points of view other than our 
own, which have the lightness and strength of the new steels 
The best social thinking of our own time is realizing that 
democracy is not simply a form of government or an elabo- 
rate structure of political machinery: it is rather a way of Hje, 
carried out into all human relations. That way of life must 
be produced by individuals who have caught its spirit and 
undertaken its responsibilities. They will be the stronger 
human material out of which the social order of the better 
future must be built. 


We need this, second, in our ethic s. Our generation is 
discovering, when it begins to think seriously about democ- 
racy, that the issues that undergird democracy reach out and 
down into ethical questions that concern the relation of men 
to their fellows, and of all social groups to other groups. 
The complacent optimism of the pre-war generation, with its 
naive confidence in human nature and social progress, took 
it for granted that these issues were simple and easy, that 
man could jump the gaps that separate him from the good 
life and the better world, as boys jump brooks with a run 
and a leap. But our post-war generation, realizing the deep 
gulfs within human nature itself that divide its ideals from 
its achievements, and the wide chasms between what Rein- 
hold Niebuhr has called "moral man and immoral society," 
stands a bit breathless on the edge of deeper ethical issues 
and ethical tasks than its lighthearted predecessors realized. 


If for a moment we look back across the long history of 
man's attempt to reach the good life and build his social 
ideals into actualities, we cannot miss the fact that over and 
over again he has tried to do this by adding rule to rule and 
ban to ban, in a legalistic code that became at last so top- 
heavy that finally it collapsed by its own weight The Hin- 
dus did this long ago, and the Jews in their time; our own 
Puritan forefathers tried it yet once more. But each time the 
same thing happened. Sometimes through the sheer over- 
weight of its elaborate legalism, but more often through a 
change in the traffic of life itself that put upon the old codes 
burdens they could not carry, the whole structure went down. 
Something like that has been happening in our own time to 
those whose sense of right and wrong has been built chiefly 
of traditional rules and prohibitions. No need to tell a 
student audience how many such crackups and breakdowns in 
conventional morality have been and still are happening all 
about us. There are those in every college community who 
in such a time toss their hats into the air and shout, "Hurrah ! 
the rules are off, and we can do as we please. There is 
neither right nor wrong any longer to bother about." It is 
worth noting that the attitude which stops with emancipation 
and irresponsibility as the last word on the edge of a great 
gulf, never yet built a bridge to the other side and never 

It is still more worth noting that these very periods of 
breakdown in traditional and conventional morality have 
often been those in which great ethical pioneers have led 
humanity forward to something deeper and better than the 
old codes. It was in such a time that the prophet Amos said 
to his contemporaries, "Let justice roll down as rivers, and 
righteousness as a mighty stream." It was in such a time 
that a greater than Amos said to his friends, "Except your 
righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes 
and the Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom 
of Heaven." The scribes and Pharisees were the rule-makers 
and the code-builders of their time and their legalisms cpl- 


lapsed long ago. But Jesus gave men through the way of 
life which he himself put into practice an attitude and a 
spirit lighter and smaller but stronger than any code; out of 
that way of life the bridges into a better world must be built. 
Aldous Huxley's Ends and Means is a modern application 
of that same insight, calling upon the individual and the 
small group to develop the "love and awareness" which are 
the "primary virtues" for an interdependent world like ours. 
Jesus' saying in the Sermon on the Mount is therefore the 
natural text for this baccalaureate sermon, addressed with 
new urgency to a generation that has to build bridges into 
a better world: "Except your righteousness shall exceed the 
righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, ye shall in no 
case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." 


We need this, finally, in our religion. Our generation 
begins to reali2e that the deeper issues of democracy reach 
down through ethics into religion What kind of universe 
is this? What are the enduring values it produces and pre- 
serves? In the pre-war days of confidence when, to borrow 
Norman Thomas' happy figure, we took it for granted that 
progress was a ramp on which humanity had only to keep 
moving in order to keep rising, we can see now that it was 
little wonder that men's sense of need for religion tended to 
lessen But we shall not understand the newer and deeper 
religious trends of our own time until we realize that man- 
kind today is catching its breath on the edge of a chasm like 
the Grand Canyon in its breadth and depth, and is asking 
whether its social hopes and faiths lie forever beyond its 
reach on that other shore. Religion within our own lifetime 
has recovered the sense of this great gulf between the 
achievements of man and the purposes of God; and we shall 
not ourselves understand some of its most characteristic as- 
pects until our own awareness of that gulf is awakened. 


The effort of religion to bridge that gulf has often in 
human history taken the form of the elaboration of dogmas 
into a more and more complicated creed. And in religion 
with its creed-building, as m ethics with its code-making, the 
historical result has usually been the same. Sometimes 
through the sheer overbuilding of the dogmatic structure, but 
more often through some change in the traffic of human life 
itself, that put on it burdens which it could not sustain, the 
old creed went down. The sound of such theological crack- 
ups and breakdowns is a familiar one in every student com- 
munity. Many of you Seniors must have heard it often 
among your classmates and very likely within yourselves! 
In most college communities there are some students and pro- 
fessors who in such a case are disposed to throw their hats 
into the air, saying, "Hurrah! Religion is through, and we 
need not bother about it any more." It is worth noting, 
again, that this attitude which stops emancipation and irre- 
sponsibility has no more bridged the gulf which religion 
senses between man and God, or solved the problem of 
man's relation to his universe and of the relation of our own 
generation to history and the future, than the same attitude 
would ever have bridged the Hudson river or the Golden 

It is further worth noting that these same periods of 
theological breakdown have often been periods of great ad- 
vance for intelligent and vital religion. It was in such a time 
that the prophet Micah said to his fellows, "What doth the 
Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and 
to walk humbly with thy God?" There is a religion lighter 
in its dogmatic structure, and smaller in its ecclesiastical bulk, 
but stronger in its ethical and spiritual carrying power. And 
a greater than Micah told his contemporaries in another pe- 
riod of collapsing creeds, that the whole law was fulfilled in 
love to man and love to God. There it is again: lighter, but 

It is also worth noting, in a time when some current 
theologies are telling us that God is inaccessible to our 


human outreach, upon another shore to which we cannot 
make our way, and when some current philosophies are 
telling us that man stands alone in the universe upon this 
shore of our human experience and limitations, with Nothing 
Beyond in which to put faith or hope that the Christian 
faith in God and in man is anchored, like the George Wash- 
ington Bridge, on both sides. The Christian religion assures 
us that in spite of man's folly and greed and sin, God is 
never beyond our human outreach when we seek him with 
all our hearts. It assures us likewise that in spite of our 
human failures, there are in us capacities and values about 
which God cares so much that he will not let us go. Our 
Christian faith is, therefore, anchored not in man alone on 
this side of our human experience, nor yet in God alone 
on the other side: but in their hope and faith and love each 
for the other. 

The difficulty is, of course, if we are honest with our- 
selves and with one another, that we have not got "what 
it takes" to live in times like these. But we who live in 
Chicago see every night upon our southeastern sky a parable 
of encouragement, which I should like to leave with you 
finally, to be remembered whenever the sky looks dark and 
the horizon lurid. After every sunset, when the steel mills 
are running in South Chicago and Gary, we can see in the 
southeast, against the blackness, the flares of furnaces heated 
seven times hotter than furnaces were ever heated before. 
How like the dark and lurid times in which our life is 
cast! But out of those same furnaces come the new steels. 

These steels are not found in nature You cannot dig 
them up ready-made in the Mesaba range or the Pennsylvania 
mountains. But the makings of them are among the com- 
monest metals in nature. The iron ore which provides their 
chief ingredient comes aboard ore ships down Lake Michi- 
gan, red with rust and full of sand and slag and stone. 
How like our human nature with its weaknesses and imper- 
fections! That human nature, as we ourselves start out on 
the voyage of life with it, does not provide us ready-made 


"what it takes" to live in times like these. But it does pro- 
vide us with the "makings/* 

The new steels are not a simple product; they are an 
alloy with many ingedients, some common and some rare. 
When men rise to tell us that all our age needs is better 
education, or more intelligence, or a different social order, 
or a new administration in Washington or any other of 
the panaceas offered for our problems I am reminded of 
the new steels. It will take most and possibly all of these 
things in combination Into that combination must enter 
more intelligence, and better education, and a better social 
order but into it must enter also personal awareness, imagi- 
nation, sympathy, good will, courage, patience, faith, hope, 
love. So, at least, the new steels have come into being! 

Once upon a time there was a man whose name has 
become synonymous with misfortune. Our younger genera- 
tion is not so familiar with the great drama of his sufferings 
and perplexities that is one of the noblest books of the Old 
Testament, as were some earlier generations, and that is 
our loss, both literary and spiritual In the twenty-third 
chapter of the book that bears his name, Job lifts his sorely 
tried faith to his Creator: "When he hath tried me, I shall 
come forth as gold." 

Our generation and especially our younger generation 
would never have had the nerve to say that. We know 
only too well that we are not made of any such precious 
metal. Our prayer would be a simpler and a humbler one: 
"When he hath tried us, may we come forth as steel" 



This sermon, the eighth in a series of sixteen addresses entitled 
Freedom, was delivered in the Catholic Hour on February 19, 1939, 
by Right Rev. Msgr Fulton J. Sheen, of the Catholic University 
of America. The Catholic Hour, initiated in 1930 by the National 
Broadcasting Company, was sponsored by the National Council of 
Catholic Men Bather Sheen was the first speaker on this program 
and has contributed a series of sermons each year since The Catholic 
World wrote editorially concerning him: "By his radio sermons and 
by his books, as well as by his lectures in this country and abroad, 
Msgr Sheen has become one of the best known priests in the English 
speaking world." (Catholic World, 139: p 619- August, 1934.) 

Patriotism is rapidly becoming a lost virtue; too many 
of our citizens think of freedom only as the right to make 
a speech; of tolerance only as indifference to right and 
wrong; of liberalism only as the surrender of tradition, con- 
stitutions, and the value of a person; and of democracy as 
only the catchword with which to involve American interests 
in international brigandry. 

Love of country needs once more to be revived, otherwise 
we shall perish for no other crime than because we refused 
to love Patriotism has a negative aspect and a positive 
aspect and one cannot be divorced from the other. Nega- 
tively, patriotism implies for us strong opposition to all 
anti- American activities; positively, patriotism requires that 
we be so grateful to God for the blessings that we enjoy 
in America that we dedicate our lives to preserve those 
blessings to the end. 

From the first point of view, if we are to maintain 
Americanism, we must remember that there are not two, 
but three anti- American ideologies: Communism, Nazism 

1 By permission of the author. The text was furnished through the courtesy 
of Right Rev. Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen. 


and Fascism. The distinction between the three to an Amer- 
ican is like the distinction between theft, burglary, and 
larceny. Every true American knows that he cannot be 
pro-Communist, or pro-Nazi, or pro-Fascist without being 
anti- American But the problem is. how to know whether 
an organization is Communist, Fascist, or Nazi? The answer 
is very simple: a truly American organization is opposed to 
all three. Hence any organization which condemns one 
without condemning the others is, to say the least, suspect. 

If a given organization, parading as patriotic and peace- 
loving, is not a stooge for the Nazi, Fascist or Communist 
powers, then let it be patriotic enough to condemn all anti- 
American activities, if it says it is immoral for Mussolini 
to set up a Fascist state in Abyssinia, and it is immoral for 
Hitler to set up a Nazi state in Austria, then let it also 
admit that it is immoral for Stalin to set up a Soviet state 
in America. Only those who condemn persecution and 
tyranny irrespective of where they find it have any moral 
right to be heard. 

The Communist tactics in the United States can be made 
clear by a parable. One day a dozen rats got into a house 
and ate cheese, meat, ham, and crackers. The housewife set 
traps and caught six of the rats. The other six remaining 
rats organized a popular front with a rat trap salesman and 
told him to tell the lady of the house that her greatest danger 
was not rats but bed-bugs; another popular front was organ- 
ized with professors, who told the housewife that statistics 
proved that 60% of children in the village of Padaowski 
lost their fingers in rat traps in one year; finally the rats 
organized a popular front with some sentimentally inclined 
social leaders who told the housewife that by using rat-traps 
she was guilty of the reactionary crime of "rat-baiting " The 
poor housewife, so overcome by such influential mt-wits, 
gave up the use of rat-traps entirely and now the rats run 
the pantry. 

The moral is obvious. Communism creates the bogey of 
Fascism in order that it may work unmolested, as Fascism 


creates the bogey of Communism. Which comes first? His- 
torically, Communism comes first, as it did in Italy, in 
Germany. There would be no Mussolini or Hitler in the 
world today if there had been no Communism, just as there 
would be no rat-traps if there were no rats. If Americans 
want to keep Fascism out of America, and we all do, then 
the best thing for us to do is to keep out Communism which 
generates it by force of reaction. To this end 18 govern- 
ments in Europe have outlawed the Communist party. Both 
Fascism and Communism are founded on the bogey of fear 
one on the fear of the "Red terror" the other on the fear 
of Fascism. Whether or not we fall prey to either depends 
upon our gullibility; and, curiously enough, those who have 
been most taken in by the Communist propaganda in the 
United States are not the workers, or the poor, but the 
"intelligentsia," that is, those who think they know but do 
not know that they don't. It is easier to get a university 
professor to join a Communist front organization than it 
is to get an unemployed father. We are supposed to be an 
alert and intelligent people, but the Communist front organi- 
zations prove that many Americans can be taken in hook, 
line, and sinker and maneuvered not only into defending 
Communist interests throughout the world but also into 
assisting them to create the situation they desire for the 
successful culmination of their revolutionary strategy. 

To all United Fronts of Nazism, Fascism, and Com- 
munism let ring in patriotic hearts the language of the 
President of the United States. "If another form of govern- 
ment can present a United Front in its attacks on democracy, 
the attack must be met by democracy. Such a democracy 
can and must exist in the United States/* To all these 
propagandists we say: If you believe that Communism, 
Nazism, and Fascism are better than Americanism, then go 
back to Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini; if you do not, then 
for the love of God's truth, stop propagandizing about them 
and let us live in peace! 


But patriotism is not just a negation of anti-American 
activities; it is above all the affirmation of a love of country 
as a reflection of our love of God, When the roof leaks 
the householder may become so concerned with its repair 
as to forget the happiness of himself and his family under 
that roof. So it is with America. Because our national 
structure has such economic leaks as unemployment and dust 
storms we are apt to concentrate so much on their repair 
as to forget the joys of living in the house called America. 
It is about time we stopped talking about our aches and pains 
and began to think of the happiness of being Americans. 

Consider some of the blessings that we in the United 
States enjoy. Economically we are better off than any nation 
in the world. The laboring man in the United States has 
a right to strike in protest against unjust wages, hours, and 
working conditions. Russia forbids the strike under Article 
131, classifying it as sabotage for which death is often the 
penalty. The Italian Law of April 3, 1926, the German 
Labor Act of January 1934, agrees with Russia in the refusal 
to grant the worker this basic right. In Italy the per capita 
bank deposit is $47.; in Germany $89.; in Russia $9.50; 
in America $423 In Italy there are 30 gallons of milk 
available per person, per year; in Russia 35; and in the 
United States 95. In Italy there are available in units of 
electricity 275 kilowat hours per person; in Germany 550; 
in Russia 190; in the United States 900. If the people in 
those countries packed up and moved by auto tomorrow, 
how many would have to walk? In Italy, for one that 
would ride, twenty would walk; in Germany for one that 
would ride, ten would walk; in Russia for one that would 
ride, 150 would walk; and in the United States there are 
enough cars for all to ride. In Italy there is one telephone 
for every 120 people; in Germany one for every 20; in 
Russia one for every 280; and in the United States one 
for every ten. 

Politically we have much to be thankful for. Note the 
difference between American and the Totalitarian regimes: 


Here in America, man is the source of rights; in Italy the 
state is the source, in Russia the class, and in Germany the 
race Here the state exists for man, there man exists for 
the state. Here the state recognizes inalienable human rights ; 
there the state grants them and since it gives man rights 
it can also take them away. Here the Government is distinct 
from the Party; there the Government /J the Party, which, 
means there is no right of dissent. Here freedom resides 
in man; there freedom resides in the collectivity in the race 
as m Germany, in the nation as in Italy, and in the class 
as in Russia. Here a man can render to God the things 
that are God's, and to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. 
There, they say, even God derives His existence and authority 
from Caesar. Here a Communist or Nazi or Fascist may 
attack the government openly or undermine it from within; 
there they would be shot for the same offense. Here even 
the anti- American survives; there only the servile exist. Here 
the moral conscience exists independently of the state con- 
science; there the moral conscience is abolished for the 
collective conscience Here a man has personal value apart 
from the mass; there he is a drop of blood in a race or a 
cog in a machine or a soldier in an army. For this blessing 
above all others we should get down on our knees every day 
and thank God we are Americans. 

We should be thankful also for our religious blessings 
and the right to adore God according to the dictates of our 
conscience A democracy cannot survive without religion. 
Once it surrenders a belief in God as the source of right 
as our Declaration of Independence affirms, then the state 
sets itself up as a source of rights and liberties. But if the 
state gives rights, then the state can take them away, and 
that is the end of democracy. So true is this that Russia, 
which has outlawed God, has also outlawed inalienable 
human rights, with Germany a dose second. These states 
know they cannot possess man body and soul until they 
dispossess religion which says the soul belongs not to the 
state, but to man and to God. It might be well to mention 


here that the grave danger facing civilization is the possible 
future union of Germany and Russia. Their political ideo- 
logies are somewhat different, though not very, for Germany 
is like a half -cooked beefsteak, brown on the outside but red 
on the inside. They have this in common, they both hate 
religion. That hate is so basic that it dwarfs other differ- 
ences of a political or economic character Let not this be 
thought an idle fear. It has happened before Pilate and 
Herod were mortal enemies until they could both condemn 
the torn and bleeding Christ, so Hitler and Stalin who are 
enemies now may yet embrace and unite for the same unholy 
cause to drive God from the earth He has made. The 
elements of a battle between brotherhood in God and com- 
radeship in anti-God already exist in germ in the present 
world situation. When it comes then shall the loyalties of 
men be tested; then shall men feel in their hearts the deep 
and hidden thrill of what is only now a catchword* "For 
God and country" There is no escaping this truth and let 
us deeply engrave it in our minds: The denial of the soul 
is the beginning of all tyranny and dictatorship. 

But religion is necessary for still another reason A 
democracy assumes that citizens will always be for justice, 
righteousness, and virtue, and that in exercising the right of 
suffrage, citizens will always choose good men and good 
policies, and never bad men and evil policies. Justice, 
righteousness and virtue are inseparable from a conscience 
and a conscience is inseparable from a moral law, and a 
moral law is inseparable from a Law Maker whose nature 
is Goodness. Let religion die out of the hearts of citizens 
and the virtues essential for democracy die with it. What 
then? Then democracy will mean the right to choose what 
is wicked and immoral; then right will mean not what is 
truly right but only what is popular. With all our talk 
about democracy let us not forget that it is possible for a 
democracy to vote itself out of democracy. The result of 
such surrender of religion and abandonment to popular fronts 
of foreign ideologies will be chaos and enthroned injustice. 


To restore some kind of order the state will then have to 
impose its own idea of religion on the people, and that is 
the beginning of tyranny. The non-religious state becomes 
the anti-religious state; the anti-religious state becomes the 
persecuting state 

Let us not forget that there are two kinds of tyrannies: 
not only the tyranny of the minority, as in Russia where 
only 2% of the population belong to the Communist Party 
and control the other 98%, but also the tyranny of the 
majority One can be just as bad as the other. A democracy 
that loses religion can be just as intolerant to its minorities 
as a dictatorship which loses religion. Only so long as men 
love justice will they be just; let devotion to a class, or 
a party ideology, or a false liberalism become the substitute 
for justice, and you surrender the belief in the sovereign, 
inalienable rights of man, which are the foundation of the 
American republic. 

It is in religious education, whether it be Jewish, Protes- 
tant, or Catholic, that the hope of America lies, for religion 
and the rights of men go hand in hand Religion and 
tyranny grow in inverse ratio The anti-religious states 
are the anti-human states. Man will always have an object 
of worship, and if he forgets the true God someone will 
forge him a new deity either of the race, or the nation, or 
the class. Nabuchodonosor of old not only demanded that 
his statue be adored, but that at a given signal the adora- 
tions of other gods should cease. Modern Nabuchodonosors 
in Germany and Russia have trumpeted the same command: 
"Render unto Caesar even the things that are God's." May 
we resist that philosophy and keep both our religion and 
our republic so that free men may always have the full 
right proclaimed by Our Lord to "render unto Caesar the 
things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are 

The decline of patriotism in America is due to a decline 
of religion. As men cease to love God, they also cease to 
love their neighbor. No one proves this better than Matthew, 


the author of the first Gospel. He was at one tune as 
unpatriotic a citizen as ever lived: his land was over-run 
by a foreign power, his fellow-citizens lost many of their 
civil and political rights and yet he welcomed the foreign 
power to his bosom for the basest of all motives, financial 
booty. He became a publican, that is a collector for the 
Romans, thus not only selling out his countrymen, but even 
filching them to enrich himself by becoming subject to the 
invaders. One day while collecting his taxes and counting 
his profits, Our Divine Savior passed by. "Come, follow 
Me," He said to Matthew, and Matthew with no other prom- 
ise than a peace which shown in the Divine Countenance 
became an apostle, an evangelist, and a martyr. He became 
more than that the greatest patriot in the Gospels. His 
Gospel might be called the Gospel of Patriotism. Tireless 
he becomes in unfolding the glories of his people, the 
traditions of his land, and the prophecies of its spiritual 
triumphs. Time and time again he goes back to the past, 
turns over the pages of Isaias, Jeremias, Micheas, David, 
and the Kings; ninety-nine times to be exact, he quotes from 
the glorious pages of his people, and crowns it all with the 
thrilling message. You are a great people! From Israel 
comes the Savior, from our clouds comes the Messias; from 
our earth the Redeemer. Hail! Christ is your king 

He became a patriot because he found his God. May 
we all go and do likewise. 


BARKLEY, ALBEN WILLIAM (1877- ). Born in 
Graves County, Kentucky; A.B., Marvin College, Kentucky, 
1897; Studied at Emory College, and the University of 
Virginia Law School; practiced law since 1901; member of 
the Sixty-third to the Sixty-ninth Congress, 1913-1927; 
United States Senator since 1927; reelected Senator in 1939 
after a strenuous primary campaign against A. B. Chandler, 
of Kentucky; Senate Leader of the Administration Party in 
the Seventy-sixth Congress 

BORAH, WILLIAM EDGAR (1865- ). Born in Fair- 
field, Illinois; educated at Southern Illinois Academy, Uni- 
versity of Kansas; practiced law at Lyons, Kansas, 1890-1891, 
Boise, Idaho, since 1891; United States Senator from Idaho 
since 1907; Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Com- 
mittee since 1924; member of the Judiciary Committee and 
the Education and Labor Committee; opposed entrance of 
the United States to League of Nations and World Court, 
active during the first Session of the Seventy-sixth Congress 
in criticising the foreign policy of the Roosevelt Administra- 

BUTLER, NICHOLAS MURRAY (1862- ). Born in 
Elizabeth, New Jersey, A.B., Columbia, 1882, A.M., 1883, 
Ph.D., 1884; honorary degrees from many American and 
European Universities; President of Columbia since 1902; 
frequently a delegate to the Republican National Conven- 
tions; received Republican electoral vote for Vice-president 
of the United States, 1913; received 69 l /z votes from New 
York State as candidate for President of the United States, 
Republican National Convention, 1920 ; member or Chairman 
of many committees, associations, and foundations for the 

1 The chief source of these notes is Who's Who in 


advancement of education; awarded one-half of Nobel peace 
prize, 1931; President of Carnegie Endowment for Interna- 
tional Peace since 1925; author of The Meaning of Educa- 
tion, 1898, Philosophy, 1911, A World m Ferment, 1918, 
Looking Forward, 1932, and numerous other books, essays, 
and addresses on subjects relating to philosophy, education, 
government, and international relations 

CLARK, BENNETT CHAMP (1890- ). Born in Bowl- 
ing Green, Missouri; A.B., University of Missouri, 1913; 
LL,B., George Washington University, 1914; Parliamentar- 
ian, United States House of Representatives, 1913-1917; 
admitted to Missouri bar, 1914; Lieutenant Colonel United 
States Infantry 1917-1918; appointed United States Senator, 
1933; elected to the Senate for the term beginning 1939; 
author: John Quincy Adams, 1932. 

CUTTEN, GEORGE BARTON (1874- ). Born in 
Canada; B.A, Acadia University, 1896, M.A., 1897; A.B. 
Yale 1897, Ph.D., 1902, B.D., 1903; D.D., Colgate, Mc- 
Master; LL.D., Acadia; ordained in the Baptist ministry, 
1897; President of Colgate University since 1922; officer in 
the Canadian Expeditionary Force; author: Mind, Its Origin 
and Goal, 1925; The Threat of Leisure, 1926; and other 

DAY, EDMUND EZRA (1883- ). Holds degrees from 
Dartmouth, Harvard, University of Vermont; Instructoi 
in Economics, Dartmouth, 1907-10; Instructor, Assistant 
Professor, and Professor of Economics, Harvard, 1910-23 
University of Michigan, 1923-27; with the Rockefellei 
Foundation since 1928 as Director of Social Science; Unitec 
States Representative on the Preparatory Commission of Ex 
perts for World Monetary and Economic Conference, 1932 
33; Director of Social Sciences for the General Educa 
tion Board since 1930; President of Cornell University sina 

DEWEY, THOMAS EDMUND (1902- ). Born ii 
Owosso, Michigan; A.B., University of Michigan, 1923 


LL B., Columbia, 1925, began practicing law in New York 
City in 1926; special assistant to United States Attorney Gen- 
eral, 1934-35 ; special prosecutor, racket and vice investiga- 
tion, New York, 1935-37; elected District Attorney, New 
York County, 1937; Republican candidate for Governor of 
New York, 1938, defeated by Governor Lehman by some 
70,000 votes (See also Representative American Speeches 
1937-38, p 163 ) 

herst College, 1904, LL.D., 1926, LLD, Temple and 
Syracuse Universities, 1934, Secretary, Public Franchise 
League of Boston, 1906-13, counsel for the employees of 
various street railway companies in wage arbitration cases, 
1913-1914, member of the Massachusetts Public Service 
Commission, 1915-1919; member of the Interstate Com- 
merce Commission since 1919, appointed Federal Coordin- 
ator of Transportation, June, 1933. 

FOSDICK, HARRY EMERSON (1878- ) Born in 
Buffalo, New York, AB., Colgate, 1900, D.D , 1914, B D., 
Union Theological Seminary, 1904, AM, Columbia, 1908; 
honorary degrees from New York University, Brown Uni- 
versity, Glasgow (Scotland) University, and other institu- 
tions; was ordained to the Baptist ministry in 1903; instruc- 
tor of homiletics, 1908-1915, Professor of Practical Theology 
since 1915, Union Theological Seminary; pastor of Riverside 
Church, New York City; author of Christianity and Progress, 
1922, As I See Religion, 1932, Successful Christian Living, 
1937; and numerous other books of a religious nature 

ard, 1903, A.M, 1904; B.D., Union Theological Seminary, 
1908, Universities of Berlin, Marburg, 1908-1909, United 
Free Church College, Glasgow, New College, Edinburgh, 
Oxford University, 1909-1910; D.D from various colleges 
and universities, including Williams, Yale, Brown, Harvard; 
Hyde Park Baptist Church in Chicago, 1910-1928; Professor 
of Preaching at the University of Chicago Divinity School, 


and Dean of the University Chapel since 1928; recently 
made Associate Dean of the Divinity School; University 
preacher at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, and other 
universities; author of Barrows Lectures Jesus and Our 
Generation, 1925, New Frontiers for Faith, 1926 and other 
religious publications. 

HILLMAN, SIDNEY (1887- ) Born in Zagare, Lithu- 
ania, came to the United States at the age of twenty; rabbini- 
cal education; with Hart, Schaffner, and Marks, 1911-14; 
employee of the Cloakmakers Union, 1914; President of 
the Amalgamated Clothing Makers of America since 1915; 
prominent in the organization of labor activities; member of 
the Labor Advisory Board, NRA, 1933; National Industrial 
Recovery Board, 1935; his organization joined the CIO.; 
appointed by President John Lewis of the C.I O. to negotiate 
for peace with the A F. of L., 1939 

HUGHES, CHARLES EVANS (1862- ). Born in Glens 
Falls, New York; AB, Brown University, 1881, AM., 
1884, LLB., Columbia, 1884; LL.D. from Brown Uni- 
versity, Yale University, Harvard University, and other 
institutions ; Dr , honoris causa, University of Brussels and 
University of Louvain, 1924; practiced law, New York, 
1884-1891, 1893-1906; special lecturer on law, Cornell Uni- 
versity, 1893-1895, New York Law School, 1893-1895; 
Governor of New York, 1907-1910 ; became Associate Justice 
of United States Supreme Court, 1910; Republican candidate 
for the Presidency of the United States, 1916; appointed 
Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1930; 
author of The Pathway of Peace, and Other Addresses, 1925, 
Pan-American Peace Plans (Yale University lectures), 1929, 
and other books on jurisprudence, government, and foreign 
relations. (See also Representative American Speeches, 
1937-38, p. 176.) 

HULL, CORDELL (1871- ). Attended National Nor- 
mal University, Lebanon, Ohio; B.L., Cumberland Univer- 


sity Law School, 1891 ; LL D. at various universities including 
Notre Dame, George Washington, Columbia, University of 
Michigan; admitted to the Tennessee bar, 1891; Circuit 
Judge, Tennessee, 1903-07, member of House of Representa- 
tives, 1917-1921, 1923-31; elected United States Senator 
from Tennessee for the term 1931-1937; appointed Secretary 
of State, 1933, and reappomted, 1937; Chairman of the 
American Delegation, Monetary and Economic Conference, 
London, 1933; Chairman of the American Delegation, 
Seventh International Conference of American States, Monte- 
video, 1933, and of the Eighth International Conference of 
American States, Lima, Peru, 1938; author of Federal In- 
come Tax System of 1915, and Federal Inheritance Act of 

Brooklyn, New York; A.B., Yale, 1921, honorary AM., 
1922, LL.B , 1925 ; LL.D. from West Virginia University, 
Lafayette College, and other institutions; Dean of Yale Law 
School, 1928-1929; President of the University of Chicago 
since 1929; author of numerous articles on American edu- 

KALTENBORN, HANS V. (1878- ). Born in Mil- 
waukee, Wisconsin. AB, cum laude, Harvard, 1909; re- 
porter, Brooklyn Eagle, 1902-1905; Brooklyn (New York) 
Eagle, 1910-1930 as dramatic editor, editorial writer, as- 
sistant managing editor, associate editor; radio news analyst 
since 1922; news editor of the Columbia Broadcasting 
System since 1930; radio reporter, Republican and Demo- 
cratic Conventions, summer, 1932, London Economic Con- 
ference, summer, 1933, League of Nations, Geneva, 1935; 
author of We Look at the World, 1930, / Broadcast the 
Crisis, 1938. 

LEE, JOSHUA BRYAN (1892- ). Born in Alabama. 
A.B., University of Oklahoma, 1917; MA., Columbia, 1924; 
LL.B., Cumberland University, 1925; teacher of public 


speaking, University of Oklahoma, 1917-1934, member of 
the Seventy-fourth Congress, 1935-37, Fifth Oklahoma Dis- 
trict; United States Senator representing Oklahoma since 
1937, private in the United States Army, fourteen months 
in France, World War; author Soldier Rhymes, 1919, Public 
Speaking Manual, 1924. 

Morrison, Illinois, AB. 5 Oberlin, 1891, AM, 1893; PhD 
Columbia, 1895; studied at the Berlin and Gottmgen, 1895- 
1896, honorary degrees at Oberlin, Northwestern, Pennsyl- 
vania, Columbia, and many other colleges and universities; 
Professor of Physics, University of Chicago, 1896-1921, at 
the California Institute of Technology since 1921, Commis- 
sioned Lieutenant, Signal Corps, USA, 1917, many prizes 
for research in electricity and physics, including the Nobel 
prize in physics, 1923; author of many scientific works 
including Elements of Physics, 1917, Science and Life, 1923, 
Evolution of Science and Religion, 1927, A First Course in 
Physics for Colleges., 1930, Science in the New Civilization, 
e, Matter and Values, 1932 

MURPHY, FRANK (1893- ). Born at Harbor Beach, 
Michigan; LL.B., University of Michigan, 1914, graduate 
study, Lincoln's Inn, London and Trinity College, Dublin; 
in practice of law, Detroit, Michigan since 1916; Instructor 
in Law, University of Detroit, 1922-1927; Mayor of 
Detroit, 1930-1933; Governor General of the Philippine 
Islands, 1933-1935; United States Commissioner to the 
Philippines, 1935-36; Governor of Michigan, 1937-39; in- 
volved in the problem of the "sit-down strike" in Michigan, 
1937; after his defeat for the reelection of Governor of 
Michigan, appointed Attorney General of the United States, 

NYE, GERALD P (1892- ). Born in Hortonville, 
Wisconsin; publisher of The Review, Hortonville, 1911; 
manager and editor of Daily Plain Dealer, Creston, Iowa, 


1915; became editor and manager of Griggs County Sentinel- 
Courier, 1919; United States Senator from North Dakota 
since 1925. 

in Hyde Park, New York; A.B., Harvard, 1904; attended 
Columbia University Law School, 1904-1907, honorary de- 
grees from Rutgers, Yale, Notre Dame, and other institu- 
tions, began practicing law in New York, 1907; Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, 1913-1920; Governor of New York 
from 1929-1933; has been President of the United States 
since 1933; Author of Whither Bound, 1926, Looking for- 
ward, 1933, 'Political 'Papers, 1938, and other books; 
recognized as one of the foremost speakers in America. 

SHEEN, FULTON JOHN (1895- ). Born, El Paso, 
Illinois; A.B., St Viatore College, 1917, AM, 1919; St. 
Paul Seminary, 1919, S.T.B. and J.C.B., Catholic University 
of America, 1920; Ph.D. Louvain University, 1923; BD 
Rome, 1924; honorary degrees from Marquette, Loyola, and 
other colleges and universities; member of faculty, Catholic 
University of America since 1926, author of God and Intelli- 
gence, 1925, Divine Immanence, 1931, The Way of the 
Cross, 1932, The Eternal Galilean, 1934, and the Mystical 
Body of Christ, 1935, and other publications 

SMITH, THOMAS VERNOR (1890- ). Born in 
Blanket, Texas; AB. degree, University of Texas, 1915: 
M.A, University of Chicago, 1916, Ph.D , 1922, Professor. 
Texas Christian University, 1916-1918, University of Texas, 
1919-1921, and professor of Philosophy at the University of 
Chicago since 1928; editor of the International Journal of 
Ethics \ member of the Illinois Senate, 1935-38; chairman 
of the Illinois Legislative Council, 1937-38; a private in the 
United States Army, 1918-1919, elected to the Seventy-sixth 
Congress from the State at large, 1938; author of The 
Democratic Way of Life, 1925, The Philosophic Way of 
Life, 1929, The Promise of American Politics, 1936, and 
other books. 


TAFT, ROBERT ALPHONSO (1889- ). Born m Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio; attended public schools of Cincinnati and 
the Taft School; was graduated from Yale University, AB, 
1910; Harvard University LIB, 1913; attorney at law, 
Assistant Counsel for the United States Food Administra- 
tion, 1917-1918, Counsel for the American Relief Admin- 
istration, 1919; member of the Ohio House of Representa- 
tives, 1921-1926, Speaker in 1926; Ohio State Senate, 
1931-32; elected to the United States Senate on November 
8, 1938, for the term ending January 3, 1945 

THOMPSON, DOROTHY (Mrs. Sinclair Lewis). (1894- 
). Born in Lancaster, New York, A.B , Syracuse Uni- 
versity, 1914, graduate study at the University of Vienna, 
speaker in up-state New York Woman Suffrage Campaign, 
1915-1917; foreign correspondent for Philadelphia Pub he 
Ledger and New York Evening Post, 1920-1928, Chief of 
Central European Service, 1924-28; member of American 
Academy of Political and Social Science; author of The New 
Russia, I Saw Hitler, and Political Guide; popular radio 
commentator; contributor to American and British reviews 

TUGWELL, REXFORD GUY (1891- ) Born, Sinclair- 
ville, New York, B.S in Economics, Wharton School of 
Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania, 1915, 
A.M. 1916, Ph.D., 1922; Professor of Economics, Univer- 
sity of Pennsylvania, 1916-1917; Assistant Professor, Uni- 
versity of Washington, 1917-1918, manager of the American 
University Union, Europe, 1918, Instructor in Economics, 
Columbia, 1920-22, Assistant Professor, 1922-26, Associate 
Professor, 1926-31, Professor since 1931; Assistant Secretary, 
United States Department of Agriculture, 1933, Under 
Secretary of Agriculture, 1934-1937; private business since 
1937; Chairman of the Planning Board of New York City 
since 1937; author of The Economic Basis of Public Interest, 
1922, American Economic Life, 1925, Industry's Coming 
of Age, 1927, Battle for Democracy, 1935, and many other 
books and articles. 


Administration of justice, speeches 
concerning, 161-83 

Agriculture, decline in income of, 
146, need for government support 
of, 156 

Agriculture. Industry, and Labor, 
Hillman, Sidney, 142-57 

Air forces, military, in Germany, 67- 
68, in the United States, 71 

Alliances, avoidance of by America, 

Americanism, contrasted with Com- 
munism, Nazism, Fascism, 245-46 

American foreign policy, speeches con- 
cerning, 25-76 

America's Town Hall Meeting of the 
Air, 138 

Amos, quoted, 240 

Analysis, a factor in a good speech, 5 

Arise, Let Us Go Hence, Cutten, 
George B., 210-20 

Armaments, necessity for in the 
United States, 37 

Bachelor's degree, at the end of the 
second year in college, 201 , as a 
terminal degree, 202-03 

Barkley, Alben W The Foreign Poll- 
ctes of Roosevelt, 53-59, biographi- 
cal note concerning, 253 

Bill of Rights, 178 

Biographical notes, 253-60 

Buenos Aires, inter-American confer- 
ence at, 43 

Bodily action, 5 

Borah, William E Possible Results 
of a European War, 29-35 , bio- 
graphical note concerning. 253 

Bridges into a better World, Gilkey, 
Charles W , 234-44 

Butler, Nicholas Murray, Why War? 
13-17 ; biographical note concern- 
ing, 253 

Canada, political relation of to the 
United States, 25-28, protection of 
by the United States. 27 

Canadian Position of the United 
States, Roosevelt, Franklin D, 25-28 

Capital, draft of. See Wealth. 

Checks and balances, 164, 68 

Chicago, University of, plan of edu- 
cation, 202 

Civilization, international character 
of. 26 

Civilian Conservation Corps, 67 

Civil Liberties, Murphy, Frank, 173- 

Civil liberty, need for, 174, curtail- 
ment of through Alien and Sedition 
Acts, 175 ; enfrmgement of, since 
1929, 176-77, embodiment of in 
Bill of Rights, 178, embodiment 
of in Fourteenth Amendment, 178 ; 
relation of to the Criminal Divi- 
sion of the Department of Justice, 
179, support of by public opinion, 

Clark, Bennett Champ, Rearmament, 
71-76, biographical note concern- 
ing, 254 

Classification of speeches, 5 

Clothing industry, collective bargain- 
ing in, 150-51. See also Collec- 
tive Bargaining 

Collective bargaining, success of, 150; 
method of, 153 

College students, ability of, 214, edu- 
cational program of, 214, friend- 
ships of, 215 : opportunities for, 

Communism, in America, 246, age 
of, 247, anti-religious character of, 

Compton, Karl, quoted, 190-92 

Conferences, inter- American, at Mon- 
tevideo, 41 , at Buenos Aires, 43 

Confidence, business, 117 

Congress, achievements of for 150 
years, 162, relation of to executive 
branch, 162 

Consumer-buying power, a basis of 
prosperity, 98, increase of through 
government spending, 100 

Corporation undistributed earnings tax, 
repeal of, 104-05 

Courts, relation of to other branches 
of government, 164, and civil lib- 
erties, 179 

Criticism of speeches, standards of, 5 1 

Curran, John, quoted, 177 

Cutten, George B. Arise, Let us go 
Hence, 210-20, biographical note 
concerning, 254 

Czechoslovakia Capitulates, Kalten- 
born, H. V, 18-21 

Daladier, Premier, as defender of de- 
mocracy, 84 

Day, Edmund E What Really Threat- 
ens American Democracy? 79-86; 
biographical note concerning, 254 


Debt, Federal, size of. 30, relation 
of to Federal investments, 105 , 
relation of to increasing national 
income, 106, prospects of decreas- 
ing, 106 

Delivery, bodily action and, 5 , per- 
sonality and, 5 , projection in, 5 , 
voice and, 5 

Democracy, public speaking and, 7, 
and propaganda, speeches concern- 
ing, 79-93, dangers to from Euro- 
pean invasion, 79-80, from a Euro- 
pean war, 81; from European 
propaganda, 81, from modern sci- 
ence and technology, 81, program 
for conservation of, 82 , dangers to 
from political corruption, 82 , dan- 
gers to from bad leadership, 83 , 
and resort to force, 84, dangers 
to from lack of social unity and 
discipline, 83 , dependence of on 
tolerance, 85 , essentials of, 163 
need for strengthening of, 173, 
238, a way of life, 239 

Democratic Party, relation of to cor- 
porate centralism, 119-25 , promoter 
of social security, 125 , opposition 
of to Republican corporate fascism, 

127, reliance of on power of the 
whole people to curb corporations, 

128, identification of with New 
Federalism, 128, and program of 
decentralization, 128 

Department of Agriculture, quoted, 

Department of Justice, Criminal Di- 
vision of, 179 

Depression, of 1933, 136, of 1937, 
136, of 1929, 146 

Dewey, Thomas E. The times Policy- 
Numbers Case, 181-83 , biographi- 
cal note concerning, 254-55 

Dictatorships, no danger to America 
from European, 80, in relation to 
American democracy, 81 

Dictatorial control, in opposition to 
Christian ethic, 226 

Discussion, relation of to propa- 
ganda, 89 

Dole, condemnation of, 102 

Drafting, of Wealth in Time of War, 
Lee, Joshua Bryan, 60-64 

Eastman, Joseph B How Can We 
Solve the Railroad Problem? 138- 
41, biographical note concerning, 

Economic and social problems, 
speeches concerning, 97-157 

Education, speeches concerning, 199- 
220, general, 200, relationship of 
to bachelor's degree, 201 , relation- 
ship of to upper and lower divi- 
sions, 202 , subject matter of 203 
at the University of Chicago, 203, 
at St. John's College, 205, discus- 

sional method of, 206, relation of 
to study of natural sciences, 207 
Ethic, Christian, a program of 
brotherhood, 223-24, opposition of 
to dictatorial methods, 226, oppo- 
sition of to war, 227 , strength, 
sources of, 230 

Fascism, relation of to democracy, 
81, 245-46 

For an Adequate National Defense, 
Nye, G P, Jr , 65-70 

For a Third Term, Tugwell, Rexford 
Guy, 166-72 

Foreign policies of Roosevelt See 
Roosevelt, F D 

Foreign Policies of Roosevelt, The, 
Baricley, Alben W, 53-59 

Foreign policy, American, vagueness 
of, 68 

Forward America A Debate, Smith, 
T V , and Taft, Robert A , 119-37 

Forms of support in speech-making, 5 

Fosdick, Harry Emerson, Jesus' Ethi- 
cal Message Confronts the World, 
223-33, biographical note concern- 
ing, 255 

Gilkey, Charles W. Bridges Into a. 
Setter World, 234-44, biographical 
note concerning, 255 

Government, speeches concerning, 
16 1-83 , achievements of in Amer- 
ican Federal system, 162, relation 
of to state government, 163 ; rela- 
tion of to individual liberty, 164, 
relation of to rights of minorities, 
164; relation of to judicial branch, 

Great Britain, a supporter of Hitler, 
33 , a supporter of Japan in Man- 
churia, 33 , a backer of Germany 
in Austria, 34, a party to the dis- 
memberment ot Chechoslovakia, 34 

Greek cmli2ation, contribution of to 
modern education, 206 

GufTey Coal Act, 135 

Hillman t Sidney, Agriculture t Indus' 
try, and Labor, 142-57, biographi- 
cal note concerning, 256 

Htnes Policy-Numbers Case, The, 
Dewey, Thomas E., 181-83 

Hitler, support of in England, 33 

How Can We Solve the Railroad 
Problem? Eastman, Joseph B , 

Hughes, Charles E The 150th Anni- 
versary of the First Congress, 161- 
65, biographical note concerning, 

Hull, Cordell, The Opening of the 
Pan American Conference, 40-52, 
biographical note concerning, 256- 



Hutchms, Robert M. The Organiza- 
tion and Subject Matter of General 
Education, 199-209 ; biographical 
note concerning, 257 

Imperialism, British, 74 

Individual liberty, relation of to Con- 
gress, 164, and the courts, 164 

Industrial democracy, success of, 152 
Sse also Clothing Industry 

Industrial expansion, decline of, 147 

Invasion, danger of, 79-80 

Jefferson, an advocate of constitu- 
tional changes, 54; in opposition 
to strong government, 54 

Jesus, quoted, 223, 224, 231, 241, 

Jesus' Ethical Message Confronts the 
World, Fosdick, Harry Emerson, 

Job, quoted, 244 

Kaltenborn, H V Czechoslovakia 
Capitulates, 18-21 , biographical 
note concerning, 257 

Kellogg, F. B , on the Pact of Paris, 

Latin America, and representative 
government, 45 ; and races, 45 , 
and the spirit of tolerance, 45 , and 
international law, 45 , and threats 
from Europe, 47; and desire for 
peace, 48; and need for measures 
of protection, 49; and Pan- Amer- 
ican conferences, 49-50, removal 
of trade barriers m, 50, promotion 
of disarmaments in, 70-51 

Labor and capital, unity of, 192 

Labor losses, 144, 146 

Leadership, for peace, 16 

Lee, Joshua B Drafting of Wealth 
in Time of War, 60-64, Technolog- 
ical Unemployment and Relief, 108- 
18; biographical note concerning. 

Liberty, defense of, 168 

Liberty and the Republic, Sheen, Ful- 
ton J., 245-52 

Micah, quoted, 242 
Middle Ages, education in, 204 
Millikan, Robert A. Science and the 
World Tomorrow, 187-93 , bio- 
graphical note concerning, 258 
Monopoly, abuses of, 125-28, 134 
Munich, conference of, 18; settle- 
ment of. 19; effect of settlement 
of, 20 

Murphy, Frank, Civil Liberties, 173 
80, biographical note concerning 

National budget, prospects for bal 
ancing, 106 

National Defense, demand for, 65 
adequate provisions for, 66; m 
justification for, m defending Brit 
ish and French imperialism, 73 
against European attack, 80 

National income, decline in, 43 
factors in, 147 

Nazism, 245-46 

Neutrality law, adequacy of, 66, at 
tempts to discredit, 66 

New Deal Must Continue, Thi 
Roosevelt, Franklin D., 97-107 

New Deal, an agency of collectivism 
131 , an agency of governments 
regulation, 132 ; failure of to re 
duce unemployment, 133 , a spoc 
sor of government controlled moc 
opohes, 134 

New Federalism, explanation of, 12 

Newman, Cardinal, quoted, 206 

Nine Power Treaty, 57 

Nye, G. P , Jr For an Adequate Dt 
fense, 65-70; biographical not 
concerning, 258-59 

Oklahoma, unemployment in, 109 
Opening of the Pan-Amertcan COT 

ference t The, Hull, Cordell, 40-5 
Organization and Subject Matter t 

General Education, Hutchms, Rot 

ert M , 199-209 
Organization, a factor in a goo 

speech, 5 
Organizations, objections to from \i 

bor, farmers, retailers^ 121, dai: 

gers of, 122 , Republican party 

supporter of, 124; Democrat! 

party and control of. 125 
One hundred and Fiftieth Anntvei 

sary of the First Congress, Hughe- 

Charles E., 161-65 

Pan-American Conference, at Lira* 
49-50, cause of, 48-50, and tb 
promotion of peace, 49; and prc 
motion of international law, 49 
and removal of trade barriers, 50 
and promotion of disarmameni 

Patriotism, decline of, 245, rel* 
tion of to Communism, Nazisn 
Fascism, 246-48; relation of t 
love of country, 248 

Peace, conditions of, 36-37 

Peace, relationship of, to sanctity c 
treaties, 37 

Persuasion, a factor ia good speaking 


Possible Results of a European War, 
Borah, W. E , 29-35 

Propaganda, dangers of, from Eu- 
rope, 81; rise of, 87-88, in Ger- 
many, 88; in democracies, 89; 
favorable types of, 90, need for 
tracing sources of, 91-2, anti- 
Semitic, 92 

Prague, and the Munich settlement, 

Presidency, direct responsibility of to 
the people, 169 , limitations of 
power of, by Senate, 170, inertia 
of during Second Term, 171 

Projection, a factor in delivery, 5 

Prosperity, dependence of on circula- 
tion of currency, 114, relation of 
to distribution of wealth, 117 

Purchasing power, need for increas- 
ing in America, 149 

Railroads, financial plight of, 138, 
causes of plight of, 138-39; com- 
petition against, 139, debts of, 
139; need of to provide service, 
140; need of to keep down rates, 
140; need of to improve equip- 
ment, 140, need of to eliminate 
wastes, 140, need of to limit 
wages, 140-41, government aid for, 

Rearmament, Clark. Bennett Champ, 

Recovery, economic, through co- 
operation of agriculture, labor, 
and industry, 145-50 

Religion, speeches concerning, 223- 
52 ; neea for strengthening, 24 1- 
42 ; a supporter of democracy, 249 , 
a foe or political tyranny, 251 

Republican Party, opponent of NRA, 
133 ; supporter of business com- 
petition, 134; supporter of wider 
distribution of incomes, 134, op- 
ponent of strong governmental con- 
trol of agriculture, labor, industry, 

Romeo and Juliet, cited, 225-26 

Roosevelt. F D. The Canadian Posi- 
tion of the United States, 25-28, 
The united States Policy Toward 
War, 36-39; The New Deal Must 
Continue, 97-107; biographical note 
concerning, 259; opposition of to 
entangling alliances, 55 ; a sup- 
porter of world trade, 56; a sup- 
porter of limited armaments, 57, 
a supporter of international social 
independence, 57, a supporter of 
the Monroe Doctrine, 58-59 

Schuschnigg, abandonment of by 
France and England, 34 

Science, speeches concerning, 187-97; 
progress of, 187-88, power ma- 
chines and the advancement of, 
189, benefits of to labor, 193; 
air travel and, 194, communication 
and, 194, public health and, 195; 
social and political change and, 

Science and the World Tomorrow, 
Millikan, Robert A, 187-93 

Senate, conservatism of, 169 

St John's College, curriculum of, 

Sheen, Fulton J. Liberty and the 
Republic, 245-52; biographical note 
concerning, 259 

Speech, types of, 3; illustrations of, 
4 , characteristics of a good, 5 ; 
standards for criticising, 5 

Smith, T V and Taft, Robert A; 
Forward America A Debate, 119- 
37; biographical notes concerning, 

South America, programs of for 
peace, 49-50 

Spanish-American War, aims of, 54 

Spending, governmental, to promote 
consumer-purchasing, 100 

Stopping Propaganda, Dorothy Thomp- 
son, 87-93 

Taft, Robert A Forward America: 
A Debate, 119-37; biographical 
note concerning, 260 

Taxes, Federal, no decrease of, 104; 
no increase of from consumers, 
104, adjustment of in levy on 
undistributed earnings of corpora- 
tions, 104 

Technological Unemployment and Re- 
lief, Lee, Joshua Bryan, 108-18 

Texts, authenticity of, 4 

Third-term, traditional objection to, 
167, "moral" objection to, 167; 
advantages of, 169-70, need for, 

Thompson, Dorothy, Stopping Propa- 
ganda, 87-93 , biographical note 
concerning, 260 

Tolerance, progress in, 175 

Trade barriers, removal of, 50 

Treaty, for limitations of armaments, 

Truth, need for in political world, 

Tugwell, Rexford Guy, For a Third 

Term, 166-72, biographical note 

concerning, 260 

Unemployment, amount of, 30; re- 
lation of to labor-saving inven- 
tions, 109, old ages pensions and 
youth administrations a partial cure 
for, 111; concentration of wealth 
a cause of, ill, the WPA a 
partial cure for, 113, distribution 
of wealth a cure for, 117 



United States Poltcy Toward War, 
The, Roosevelt, F. D , 36-39 

United States, as agent for peace, 
16-17, unemployment in, 30; debt 
of, 30 , economic advantages of, 
248, political blessings of, 248, 
religious freedom in, 249. See also 
National Defense 

Voice, importance of m speech-mak- 
ing, 5 

Wages, losses of through depressions, 

Wagner Act, 135 

War and peace, speeches concerning, 

War, causes of, 13 ; cure of through 
the people, 15 , devastation of 
next, 15; prevention of, 16; re- 

sults of, to United States. 30-31; 
difficulties of financing by Ger- 
many, 61 ; financing of by the 
United States, 62; a denial of 
Christian ethic 227, 232. 

Washington, George, on entangling 
alliances, 54 

Why War? Butler, Nicholas Mur- 
ray, 13-17 

Wealth, draft of in war time, 61; 
financing war through, 61 ; secur- 
ing national support through 63; 
in the United States, 112; mal- 
distribution of in the United 
States, 148 

What Really Threatens American 
Democracy? Day, Edmund E., 79- 

Works Progress Administration, 111 

World war, results of, 32 ; financing 
of, 62 


This series includes a number of subjects on public questions on which 
every man and woman should be well informed. The reprints are grouped 
(for convenience) according to the stand taken by the speaker quoted on the 
subject and an extensive bibliography guides one to further reading. 

$2.40. 1925. MENTS. D. Bloomfleld $2.40 1919 


CLOSED SHOP. L. T. Beman. 2d ed. Beman. $2 40. 1924. 


Bloomfield. $2.40. 1927. vitch. $2.40 1925. 


$2.40. 1926. $240. 1926 


TION, L .T. Beman. $225. 1921. ^^sSmau 1 1921, 

New ed. in preparation. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE A 

EVOLUTION. E. M. Phelps, $2.40 B. Forsberg, $2.40. 1926. 


ISM. E. C Vanderlaan. $2.40. 1925. Johnsen. $2.40. 192C. 


Cloth. Price $2.40 each. $12 for the Series of 6 in one order. 


SETTLEMENTS. J. T. Gerould and 

VOL. 2. FEDERAL DEPARTMENT L. S. Turnbull. 1928. 
1WT> AMERICA. L. T. Beman. 1928. 

TODAY. J. E. Johnsen. 1928 Johnsen. 1928. 


Gerould. 1929. Johnsen. 1930. 


Dll B I MOI IB A Mr*e T31 T T>nvrr A M MWU 

BILE INSURANCE. L L. Bowers. icon 

1929. u * 


TRIBUTION. D. Bloomfleld. 1930. TURES. L. T. Beman. 1931. 



Tdihnrnnii. rev. ed. 19S6. TERNATIVES. J. B. Johnsen. 1983. 



RUSSIA, Buehler, Maxwell, Pflaum. MAXIMUM HOURS. E. R. Ntcholi 

1931. and J. B. Baccus. 


E, M. PHELPS, ED. Cloth. Price $2.25 

Series of year books, each a collection of representative intercollegiate 
debates on important questions of the day. Constructive and rebuttal speeches 
for both sides. Each debate is accompanied by selected bibliography and briefs. 

Vol. XXV. 1938-1939. 

The Increase in the National Debt; The 
Anglo-American Alliance, Government 
Ownership and Operation of the Rail- 
roads, Alliance of "United States, France 
and Great Britain Against Fascism, 
Have the Achievements of Science 
Brought Progress?; American Solidarity; 
The Problem of Unemployment; The 
American Newspaper; "Pump-priming" 
Should Cease, Government and Health. 

Vol. XXIV. 193M938. 

Democracy and Economic Prosperity; 
American, Isolation from European Af- 
fairs; Protection of United States Citi- 
zens on Foreign Soil: Academic Free- 
dom, Grades and Final Tests Subversive 
of the Aims of Higher Education; Amer- 
ican League of Nations; Anglo-American 
Mutual Assistance Pact; NL.R.A, and 
Arbitration of Industrial Disputes, Um- 
cameral Legislatures; Uniform Marriage 
Laws; Regulation of Advertising* * 

Vol. XXIII. 1936-1937. 

The Constitution a Menace j Government 
Ownership of Electric Utilities; Subsi- 
dizing College Athletes; Teachers' Oaths, 
Unicameral Legislatures; Economic Inter- 
nationalism; Minimum Wages and Maxi- 
mum Hours (two debates), Consumers' 
Cooperatives, The Present-day Family aa 
a Social Institution; The Sit-down Strike 

Vol. XXH. 1935-1936 

A Written Constitution a Hindrance to 
Social Progress; State Medicine; Com- 
pulsory Military Training; Legalization 
of Sweepstakes: Admission of Negroes to 
State Universities; Tbf Neutrality Policy 
of the United States; The Parole Sys- 
tem; Admission of Hawaii as a State; 
Limitation of the Poww of the Supreme 
Court (Two debates). 

Vol. XXI. 1934-1935. 

Equalizing Educational Opportunity: An 
Evaluation of the New Deal; Soc ; al 
Services and Unemployment Relief; In- 
ternational Traffic m Anns and Mtuu- 
turns; Democratic Collectivism; The 
Agricultural Adjustment Administra- 
tion; Collective Bargaining; Government 
Ownership and Operation of Public 
Utilities; Pacifism the Highest Form of 
Pfthiftttom* Tflmn atirf tfanl Paritv. 

Vol. XX. 1933-1934. 

British System of Radu> Control and 
Operation; Armed Intervention, Japa- 
nese Policy in the Far East; A Depart- 
ment of the Consumer in the President's 
Cabinet, University of Chicago Plan of 
Education; Economic Reconstruction; 
Increasing the Powers of the President; 
Socialized Medicine; Freer Trade; Prob- 
lem of State Liquor Control. 

Vol. XIX. 1932-1933. 

Limitation by Law of Gifts, Incomes 
and Inheritance; Property Taxation for 
State and Local Revenue; British System 
of Radio Control; Safety-Responsibility 
tary Domestic Allotment Plan; Federal 
Regulation of Electric Power Utilities, 
Dictatorship Versus Democracy; Capital- 
ism Has Broken Down; Peace Is Impos- 
sible Under Capitalism; Stimson Doctrine 
of Non-recognition of Territory Acquired 
Thru Violation of Treaties. 

Vol. XVm. 1931-1932. 

Russian and American Civilizations; 
Control of Production and Distribution 
in Major Basic Industries, Wage Cut- 
ting and Business Recovery; Capitalism 
on Trial: Intervention in the Carib- 
bean: Industrialism vs. Agrarianism for 
the South; Recognition of Russia: Cen- 
tralized Control of Industry; Cancel- 
lation of International War Debts (two 

Vol. XVII. 1930-193L 

The Young Plan; Dominion Status for 
India, Amateurism vs. Professionalism 
in College Sports; Repeal of die Eigh- 
teenth Amendment: The Machine Age; 
Free Trade; Reforestation of Farm 
Lands; Compulsory Unemployment In- 

Vol. XVL 1929-1930. 

Foreign Debts and Tariff; Chain Store 

Disputes; Complete Disarmament: On- 
tario System of Liquor Control; Censor- 
ship; Higher Education for Exceptional 
Students Only; Cotsworth Thirteen 
Month Calendar; Oriental vs. Western